Pope Paul VI On Birth Control Externalities

Courtesy of commenter “max from australia”, a juicy quote from a former Pope which accords with Chateau Heartiste analysis of the deleterious blowback from the availability of widespread, cheap contraceptives (of the sort never before experienced by humanity until relatively recently):

“Not much experience is needed in order to know human weakness, and to understand that men—especially the young, ….. growing used to the employment of anti-conceptive practices, may finally lose respect for the woman and, no longer caring for her physical and psychological equilibrium, may come to the point of considering her as a mere instrument of selfish enjoyment, and no longer as his respected and beloved companion” (HV 17).

Pope Paul VI was close to the mark, but he forgot to mention the distaff side the equation; specifically, that as cheap contraceptives silently and subtly move men toward devaluing women, so too does the technology move women toward devaluing beta males, those bitter losers in the sexual market (note: I did not say marriage market or child market) for whom contraceptives, coupled with female economic self-sufficiency, have rendered them practically superfluous as primetime sexual partners.

The mass-produced condom and the Pill have freed men from feeling obligation for women as much as they have freed women to regularly and blithely pursue what was historically risky sex with caddish alpha males on the make.

The contraceptive is, in practice, a female hypergamy facilitator.

It’s funny for me to write this, because contraceptives have, in fact, been very very good to me. I did a back of the envelope calculation and figured that my aggregate sex life would have been truncated by 90% if contraceptives were prohibitively expensive, unreliable and hard to get. A world in which women had to grapple with real, palpable fears of STDs, pregnancy and subsequent abandonment is, not to put too fine a point on it, a really shitty world for womanizers and serial monogamists and uncomplicated lovers of the art of seduction itself. I imagine I’d have to *gasp* start promising marriage or some such claptrap to any woman I wanted to bang, just to loosen her up enough to unhook her bra.

I am on record as predicting that the Six Sirens of the Sexual Apocalypse will be the cultural and technological juggernaut that hastens, if it is not the sole cause of, the death of Western civilization.

Is this revelation, this knowledge, supposed to turn me from my wicked ways? Here I am, standing at the edge of the abyss, pointing into its bowels like a histrionic jester, leading the ignorant and the deluded to peer into the void and imploring them — no, more precisely taunting them — to heed my warning of their desolate future…

and still I cavort insouciantly along its lip, secretly relieved that no one will seriously weigh my prophecies.

Pope Paul VI, apparently, was as far-seeing as I. Yet his vision of the good world, the civilized world — a vision with which I find no quarrel — would, if it were fully realized, necessarily mean a lot less fun for me. And that’s a reality I can’t abide; my own private delusion.

Techne sets the parameters of the challenge. Episteme guides us through the challenge.

Take six of the most obvious technological mileposts: the crossbow, the telegraph, the airplane, the automobile, the contraceptive pill, the internet. They each precipitated world-altering events, they each brought anomie, chaos, and new institutions. They all seemed to promise the obsolescence of old ways and the dawning of a new age from which we could never return. On the margins, they heralded the idea that human nature itself is malleable, subject to techne, open to manipulation.

This is the maelstrom into which we were born. We inherited the Heraclitian idea that “all is flux,” that nothing is permanent, that everything can be bent toward our human will. This site’s fixation with the “biomechanics is god” philosophy is an echo of the postmodern predicament. Insofar as credulous, semi-educated, and desperate searchers rely on such pseudowisdom for answers, they build their house upon sand. (On the other hand, they are a step closer than their spiritual brethren on the left to acknowledging the unalterable permanence of human nature, if arriving at their “science” in a blind-groping and ignorant way.)

We Christians, however, build upon rock. And while this declaration will bring the usual village atheist-idiots out of their hovels, put aside the fideism and think empirically. Only one institution has survived intact up to our present age from ancient history, no matter what the struggle, no matter what the social trends. Indeed, the “gates of hell will not prevail against” us. Exaggerations of our demise have been proclaimed ever since the apostles fled the passion and cross.

The “institutions” come and go, save one. They will crumble and be rebuilt around the techne shaped by those whose progeny remain to promote righteous episteme. Tree-obsessives miss the forest. By definition, the church is charged to look past any single lifetime and toward the long view. That’s why Paul VI’s observation was — and most papal encyclicals are — a no-brainer: sub specie aeternitatis goes with the job description. We are the keepers of the generations. The rest of you, along with your pet concerns, are “but a moment’s sunshine / Fading on the grass.”

If I read you correctly, your are arguing that the first invention, the crossbow, “democratized” warfare. I would argue that this didn’t really happen until the development of the matchlock mechanism on firearms.

Crossbows never dominated the battlefield to the extent that longbows achieved, over a comparatively small number of engagements, or firearms achieved, across a much broader number.

Prior to the invention of the firearm, the mounted (rich) man dominated the battlefield. A cluster of crossbowmen could still get off no more than one shot each before the horse could close and destroy their formation. The firearm fired faster, flew further, and hit much harder. The invention of the bayonet completed the defensive circuit, but I would argue it was the development of the matchlock that was the beginning of the end of honor on the battlefields of Europe.

Not really talking about the exact effects of technology so much as emphasizing it as a change agent, with principled reaction (philosophy made pragmatic) a lagging indicator.

At first the technology is apprehended under the old rules — the first cars were best understood as “horseless carriages.” Then the technology necessitates new rules. The bleeding edge mistakes this new mode as a change in nature itself and believes this circumstance requires entirely novel philosophies rather than tweaks and adjustments to principles.

Humanae Vitae is an excellent example of the cycle. We don’t return to the venerable principles until we have exhausted every other option, often damaging — or in the worst cases, extincting — ourselves in the process. The ruination brings conservatism and sanity back into style.

If liberals could get embarrassed, they would find it embarrassing that a celibate (we think) old religious guy predicted sexual behavior better than the enlightened progressives of the day. I note that the Pope did not predict how the females would behave. That means he was certainly a beta or a white-knighter. Or just wouldn’t bring up the subject, since women hold a place of high esteem in Christianity. All delusions.

By the way, feminists and other Pill pushers predicted that legalizing contraception and making it widely available would improve society in numerous ways. It would reduce divorce, because couples could have more sex without worrying about pregnancy. It would reduce child abuse, because people wouldn’t have children they didn’t want. It would reduce teenage pregnancy, because obviously teens would just use contraception. It would reduce poverty, because people wouldn’t have more children than they could afford. Basically, life would be rainbows and unicorns once we had the Pill.

The cranky old pope, Paul VI, predicted just the opposite: more divorce, more marital strife, more illegitimacy, more abuse. People scoffed and said he was out of touch; what would an old, white, celibate priest know about marriage and sex?

There isn’t much difference between deceitful racists like you and most leftists – both have misleading ideologies they want to bring to the mainstream, using propaganda to do it. You want to switch Jews for liberals, and they want to switch racists or white-supremacists for conservatives. Two sides of the same coin.

Their demagogy appeals to the emotions and prejudices of the angry losers, which is how racist killers like your role model are born. Thankfully, people with insight and mental awareness know what men like you are all about. You’re not fooling anyone, just the idiots.

HEY HEATRIRTZEZ!! this rmeindz me of a joke i told at thaknigivingz!!!!

The joke goeas like this:

The Pope, Heartistes, and da GBFM walk into a Bar on K street zlzzoozoz. There are lotsass hotties on the pill in the bar, who because of the pill, have transofomered tehir once-fertile gina holes into infertile butthoelozzlzoozozoz

The pope says, “Not much experience is needed in order to know human weakness, and to understand that men—especially the young, ….. growing used to the employment of anti-conceptive practices, may finally lose respect for the woman and, no longer caring for her physical and psychological equilibrium, may come to the point of considering her as a mere instrument of selfish enjoyment, and no longer as his respected and beloved companion.”

Da GBFM turns to da hearteistes and says, “u can have first pick but get next two zlozzllzozlzlzo”

Yup. And, as previously discussed, welfare supercharges the process for the least well off.

I spent some time in Singapore, some years ago. Maybe OT, maybe not.

They have arrived at a point that appears – and probably is – stable, for them. The deal in Singapore is it is sortof socially accepted for young people to have sex – and using contraception. However, having illegitimate children is NOT accepted at all. Strong families with two parents married to each other, and divorce is rare.

Now, how does this compute? Well, here is the deal. If an unmarried woman gets pregnant, there is enormous social pressure (by the whole culture, not necessarily individually – nobody else might even know she is pregnatn) for her to do either

1) Marry the father (this is a golden oldie in most societies, including the West.

2) Have an abortion – consider no biggie

3) Adopt out the baby (I think this is rare, but I don’t have the stats)

Marriage is also boosted by some legal inducements. Among which, everybody who works in Singapore has to contribute to a pension plan, but it is an individual pension plan, not like US Social Security but more like a compulsory IRA/401K/whatever).

And generally, you CANNOT borrow from this fund, except if you are married and you and your spouse are buying a house/apartment/condo/whatever..

It also has a total TFR of .7 of a needed 2.1 the lowest birth rate in the world

In plain English, they are having 1/3 the babies they need to survive a culture. Whatever they have going doesn’t work for what matters, a future where there are people with the cultural identity of Singaporean

Only partly right. We don’t think in words; this has long been debunked. Words can be used to obfuscate and misdirect, however, and that’s why the manginas and feminists’ first recourse is language manipulation. They’re slippery fucks because reality isn’t.

I am pretty sure thwack is white. Octaroon at worst. Methinks muhnigga doth protest too much. He begins with an excellent point, and all I can do — seriously — is scan down to get to the word “nigger,” because I know one is lurking in the woodpile.

On the upside, we are witnessing a Dreams from My Father identity struggle going on in real time. Not much of an upside, but it is fun to watch the psychological gears grinding.

You write like the “lesbian Syrian blogger” who was actually some SWPL neckbeard “speaking for the disenfranchised.”

My guess: you are the saucy fiction conjured by an apartment of unemployed hipsters in Williamsburg with rotating responsibilities for trolling white supremacy sites. Come clean, Chad and Benny and Siobhan.

My guess: you are the saucy fiction conjured by an apartment of unemployed hipsters in Williamsburg with rotating responsibilities for trolling white supremacy sites. Come clean, Chad and Benny and Siobhan.

My guess: you are the saucy fiction conjured by an apartment of unemployed hipsters in Williamsburg with rotating responsibilities for trolling white supremacy sites. Come clean, Chad and Benny and Siobhan.
————

Are you saying there are white people who would pay me for doing this?

There’s a popular movie from the 1980’s called 48 Hours, in which Eddie Murphy (a con, but helping out detective Nick Nolte) goes into a redneck bar acting like a cop, and amidst his shuckin’ n’ jivin’, one of the rednecks asks “What kind of cop are you?”

” A world in which women had to grapple with real, palpable fears of STDs, pregnancy and subsequent abandonment is, not to put too fine a point on it, a really shitty world for womanizers and serial monogamists and uncomplicated lovers of the art of seduction itself.”

Profound. For the first time in history, it has become possible to become a serial womanizer without being a sultan or super famous like Erroll Flynn.

Like most mainstream socons, Pope Paul didn’t really get it. He was one of the most egregious perpetrators of the myth that the sexual revolution was about what those bad, bad men were doing to those poor innocent wimmins. Oh please, get me a barf bag.

Ah, no. Whatever one may think about Catholicism, it has taught from the start that people are no damn good at all, i.e. Original Sin. The only woman who was ever without sin was the Blessed Virgin Mary. I think that pope or any pope would be the last man on earth to deny the reality of female hypergamy. Hell, even good old St. Paul knew the score (wimmins obey your husbands and keep your heads covered in church.)

He was one of the most egregious perpetrators of the myth that the sexual revolution was about what those bad, bad men were doing to those poor innocent wimmins.

Citation or it didn’t happen.

I love how soi-disant iconoclasts make grand claims about “perpetrators” and “myths” … even as they perpetrate the hoariest myths there are. The pope: nothing but an American “socon,” fits snugly into that cubbyhole. Like some ultra-Pat Robertson in gold vestments. Next!

Know-it-all faggots like you invented the word “churchian.”

But what would internet conversation be without an unlimited straw heap with which certain ignoramuses construct their “enemies”? Worst of all, such enemies attain that status in the hater’s superficial, paranoid mind out of little more than his once having caught a fleeting, bad odor. It’s a superficiality that smacks of … wait for it … feminine judgment.

The church has never been naïve about female nature. We never have pedestalized it, nor have we degraded it in reaction to passing fads. We are quite clear about hypergamy, which is why our scripture begins with the ur-explanation of female wanderlust. We are the last hold-out against feminist infiltration. While the lukewarm Christians are outfitting priestesses in lavender cassocks, not a single Petrine prelate has blinked. Indeed, they find our fixations and feminist capitulations curious. Even the United States infantry is wavering.

Sort of. What a woman wants is to know that she’s sexually desirable. Unfortunately, in the sexual free-for-all of today, that means acting like a slut, ie, letting herself be treated like a piece of meat.

On this Sunday morning, I too have had a vision. It went something like this:

I take your phrophesy seriously as I see the effects of the Men’s Liberation Movement and I wonder if there is any instance where you *would* advise a man to marry. Isn’t that the one last vestige to save him from the abyss as well?

Paul VI brought the collapse of civilization into the Catholic Church with his Vatican II and his gutting of the rites, which basically turned it into a larger version of the Church of England. Plus, there was evidence he was gay, at least as strong as for 0bama.

This may be one explanation for his weaksauce beta white-knighting in Humanae Vitae. Even if he was a revolutionary, he had to at least keep up appearances to keep Catholics from getting suspicious.

Paul VI’s legacy is mixed, for sure. Lots of problem with Vatican II. But, I think Paul VI still deserves to be called a great pope because of Humanae Vitae – the most important and greatest encyclical of the 20th century.

At the height of the cultural revolution that was occurring [1969], Paul VI had the courage in Humanae Vitae to say that sexual license is wrong and it has serious consequences.

Many at the time dismissed Paul VI for being out of touch with the times, but what have been the fruits of the sexual revolution forty years after Humanae Vitae?

– increased rates of single motherhood [check]

– increased rates of STDs [check]

– increased numbers of men dropping out of society/economy because of limited access to pussy [check]

– declining fertility rates in the western world, leading to economic collapse because of declining taxbase [check]

You’re gonna have to do much better than this. To which part specifically are you referring?

Also, next time you think about spreading rumors of crypto-queenism, consider what it means to call another man’s father a faggot. I realize you have a point to make — unlike the other ad hominem trolls who express their broken-home resentment by pissing on the church — but you are stomping around in territory where you should be treading carefully. The church is my family; if you have criticism, present it with respect.

Whether Paul VI was gay or not is relatively unimportant. It would be telling, especially given the gay scourge in the seminaries that started during his reign, but it’s not the main point I was trying to make. Humanae Vitae was a stale bone thrown to conservatives. If you and Alexander IX wish to consider Paul VI a “great pope” because of this encyclical, despite his basically destroying all the sacramental rites (except baptism and matrimony, which don’t require priests), and bringing the Protestant Reformation to the hitherto untouched half of Western Christendom, than that’s fine. But I never will. As far as I’m concerned, he’s the worst pope the Church has been afflicted with for centuries, at least… assuming, of course, he was actually a pope and not a heretic, which I am not convinced of.

I reserve respect for real Catholicism. Liberal modernism, on the other hand, deserves only one thing: to get mocked, laughed, and dumped on.

Believe me, it actually pains me to defend Paul VI because of some of the problems that you mention. I’ll even agree that Paul VI was weak! But Humanae Vitae was not a “stale bone thrown to conservatives” – that’s rubbish!

You’re forgetting the context. John XXIII [who was far more liberal than Paul VI] had established the Pontifical Commission on Birth Control. The commission had 72 members. 65 of them issued a majority report in which they advocated artificial contraception. The remaining 7 issued a minority report stating that artificial contraception is fundamentally wrong. Paul VI rejected the majority report and issued Humanae Vitae, which agreed completely with the minority report. It took guts for Paul VI to do this.

Imagine if Paul VI had sided with the majority. The Church today would be an irrelevant, comical sideshow like the Anglican/Episcopalian church has become. Instead, the Church today is the one major institution that has the guts to say that a lot of what society does today is morally wrong.

@Alexander IX I don’t know you but I think you should just consider looking further into the issue. If the analysis is carried out one cannot declare so clearly that Paul VI was even a valid pope. Enough said.

Bet you the masses don’t know the pope have hidden women/children on the side or US presidents are actually married to the first ladies. The sheeple love the FANTASY that the worlds most important figurehead is actually MARRIED to a REGULAR looking woman or even an ugly one, because he like her for what’s on the inside.

Curious post. Courtesy, I suppose, of the Catholic inhabitant of the chateau.

I’m in the same boat. Sort of.

I’m taking (and have taken) full advantage of the sexual availability of modern females, but there lingers at the back of my mind an idea that something better once prevailed…

If it is true the West is dying and circumstances haven’t yet progressed to the point where modern White men can finally experience life as it is meant to be experienced, then there are worse places to be than poolside with a cocktail in one hand and a hottie beside you.

Because sluts are made, not born. Marriage protects women from becoming them and men from making them.

[Heartiste: Well, if the science coming down the pike is correct, it’s more accurate to say sluts are both made and born, (like many human personality traits). Sociosexuality varies by individual and by group, and sluts likely score higher in native levels of this trait. Otoh, culture obviously wields immense power over how much women’s natural inborn sluttiness is expressed. A strongly patriarchal culture with a deep marriage tradition will tamp down on both total number of sluts and the degree of practiced sluttiness. As always, societies have to find that balance between individual freedom and civilizational cohesion.]

Women are born sluts, just as men are born savage. All civilization is arranged to refine that savagery toward less self-destructive ends.

We have been playing fast-and-loose with that principle for a century, and most particularly, for the last fifty years. Rousseau’s preposterously fantastical “noble savage” has been tried and found severely wanting. We are the sons of that experiment, born to live the consequences, to triumph over the destruction, and ultimately to defeat the saboteurs and replace their ruins with glory.

You sound really smart talking about Rousseau, unfortunately, he never wrote about the “noble savage”, that’s a misappropriation.
Rousseau thought the perfect state, which he called the third stage, was right between extreme oppression of our natural tendency (the fifth stage) and the untamed, savage extreme (first stage). He was repulsed by the first stage in fact.
Have fun looking it up! I’m pretty sure they mention it on Wikipedia.
[fail]

I’m not sure what you’re trying to say. I don’t know if JJ used the term “noble savage,” but that is the gist contained in two of his most famous works, “The Discourse on Inequality” and “The Social Contract,” not to mention his most famous quotation:

“Man is born free, and everywhere he is in chains.”

Stop being pedantic, you get the point.

It doesn’t matter what did or didn’t “repulse[]” the old pervert. Rousseau promulgated a moral anthropology based on the innocence of the savage, and this error influenced political philosophy for centuries, right down to our present day, where too many people believe educating children requires a hands-off, free-range approach rather than an intensive exorcising of the animal within. Beginning, of course, with baptism.

It’s why during the Regency period fathers protected daughters from cads turning them into sluts, and parents worked hard to find worthy mates for their daughters as marriage affords respect for women. Woman left to their own devises back then would turn into something like Can Can dancers/courtesans.

In the absence of such societal protections, it’s up to women to protected themselves and their virtue. It’s not easy to keep your legs closed when everyone around you and all your friends are “living it up” as sluts. But it’s the only way if you don’t want to become a toilet seat for men. So yes, marriage is the best solution for women and it’s why women do have such a strong spiritual need to get married.

In the absence of such societal protections, it’s up to women to protected themselves and their virtue.

Unfortunately for your sex (and for civilization), women cannot do this on their own. Just as it takes every effort of the polity and culture to civilize men into citizens, it requires a similarly comprehensive education and life-long discipline to keep women from suiciding themselves over hypergamy.

“Toilet seat for men” is an apt turn of phrase. Gaze upon any college campus and despair. The lesson of the modern era is: women, left to their own devices (and especially when encouraged by the reigning ideology!), have no natural defenses from the soft rape of sexual anomie and pure libertinism.

Either men play a part protecting their daughters and sisters and wives, or the lowest common abominator obtains and skank chic abounds, from well before puberty to past cougardom. Behold hypergamy unleashed and normalized. Like an overflowing privy turned inside out for all the world to see and smell.

“Unfortunately for your sex (and for civilization), women cannot do this on their own.”

Unfortunately, I agree with you completely. Show me a man that can fight his urges, and I will show you true power. That’s the example of a true alpha in my book. Unfortunately, many men can’t control their urges for the sake of something greater, like marriage, for example. It’s because the urge is so powerful, no one can withstand it. But I trust men are more able to engage in self-control, than I trust women. I don’t believe women can control themselves. Even the most virtuous of women, when she comes in contact with a man that knows how to wrest her virginity from her, she will fall like a penetrated fortress. How’s that reality coming from a woman?

Sigh…..I meant that at least women should try. There are no strong fathers anymore, and the mothers are idiotic feminists, most of the time encouraging their daughters to “experiment” (I can’t tell you how many of my girlfriends told me this and made me puke), so at least a girl should have standards – the lower her number the better. It’s a choice between two evils.

My God, I have reached the pitiful point of being happy when I see a Hollywood couple have a child out of wedlock and getting married as a result, as opposed to the throngs coming out of the closet. I often say, ‘well, at least they are not gay, that’s a relief, and they think that getting married for the sake of the child is important.’ That’s how pitiful our position has become, to the point that any bone thrown toward old-fashioned values is venerated in our minds. But, I digress once again.

Unfortunately, many men can’t control their urges for the sake of something greater, like marriage, for example. It’s because the urge is so powerful, no one can withstand it.

Marriage should be “something greater,” but it no longer is, at least since the pill and advent of no-fault divorce. The institution is in such disrepair that we are redefining it according to individual taste with very little pushback. And not only is there little resistance, there is little understanding of the possibility of and necessity for resistance. “What do you care? Why do you want to keep them from loving each other?” This is not an argument, it is a sentiment, and sentimentality rules without dispute, even among ostensible “conservatives.”

To the last person leaving western civilization for the state of nature: please turn out the lights.

That Pope was naive about stuff like female hypergamy but how was he supposed to have known better? The crucial Experiment had not been carried out in his time. Indeed, it could not have ever been carried out before the arrival of the 6 horses of the sex-apocalypse..

“Yet she multiplied her whoredoms, in calling to remembrance the days of her youth, wherein she had played the harlot in the land of Egypt. For she doted upon their paramours, whose flesh is as the flesh of asses, and whose issue is like the issue of horses.”

A modern translation is “There she lusted after her lovers, whose genitals were like those of donkeys and whose emission was like that of horses”.

This isn’t just applicable to hypergamy and marriage, by the way. For example, the Kosher laws were health-based, but have been passed down in a cloak of dogma and mysticism because the Jews didn’t have the science theory to explain why things happened–like why you got sick after eating pork that had been rolling around in shit and eating trash before it was butchered. Gay sex was called an abomination no doubt because of all the unfortunate health effects it would have had at that time, not to mention any social repercussions. Unfortunately, many people now dismiss religious teachings as irreconcilable to our current enlightened state without first seeking the deeper purpose and teachings behind them.

Nobody was “naive about female hypergamy,” except the useful idiots who ratified the feminist revolution. Speak for yourself.

But you do bring up a good point. Those who stumble upon game and regard it as powerful occult magic based on secret knowledge — rather than a return to social principles as every successful civilization has always known them — are exposing themselves for the poor students of history they are.

“The crucial Experiment had not been carried out in his time.” ROFLcopter.

Yes, but nature has a away of writing the wrongs wrought by man. And what’s happening is that fundamentalist women not using the pill are outbreeding ones that do. Those women are from a religion that wishes to have world domination and will soon achieve it, thanks simply to the numbers.

When they asked the native Americans why the new settlers beat them in battle on their own turf, their answer was “They was just more and more of them and we couldn’t win. They just kept coming.” Americans will soon be singing this same song. Might doesn’t make right; numbers do. We gave up the numbers and the might when we made contraception accessible and affordable.

Do you have any stats to back this up? I wish it were true, but fertility is cratering in places you wouldn’t expect at all. In Saudi Arabia, e.g. it has gone from 6.3 to 2.26 in the last 12 years! In Mexico it has gone from 2.67 to 2.27 in the last 12 years. In Iran it has dipped under 2 in the last few years. In Pakistan, a former heavy hitter it has gone from 4.56 to 3.07 in the last 12 years.

I’ve found stats for US religions from 2003, but the rapid plunge probably makes those numbers obsolete.

In any case – Iran? Saudi? Pakistan? The most fundie Muslim places are cratering. How does that fit in with the 6 sirens theory?

There’s something more at work here – I suspect that better wealth and health has a major impact on fertility globally.

Indeed, the Israelis and Kurds have fertility rates beating the average in the middle-east by a large margin. “Spengler” regularly addresses this stuff over at Asia Times. (he also writes a lot of drivel) — at any rate, “the future belongs to those who show up.”

I have to conclude that, given the likelyhood of a continued global fertility implosion, the future belongs to robots. This is looking more and more like The Singularity Is Near, but mass unemployment won’t be a problem because of lower population. You’re going to have automation serving the graying population, which will push mean longevity into the triple digits.

Yes – and we can’t forget that medical science is not standing still. We still haven’t picked all the fruit from the human genome project. At some point you’re going to have human beings with tailor-made health programs from birth.

Last I heard, the Israelis who are having tons of kids are Israeli citizens of Palestinian(Arab) descent.
There is no ‘population implosion’, just a correction of the population EXPLOSION the Earth has endured over the past 150 years or so.
Not sure if pushing human life expectancy into triple digits is such a good idea, in fact, I’m not sure human beings were ever meant to live much past 35.

Female hypergamy was kept in check, as stories like this were all too real:

The wake of the alpha, pre-sirens; when god was unforgiving:

[Fantine is left alone, unemployed and destitute]

[FANTINE]
There was a time when men were kind
When their voices were soft
And their words inviting
There was a time when love was blind
And the world was a song
And the song was exciting
There was a time
Then it all went wrong

I dreamed a dream in time gone by
When hope was high
And life worth living
I dreamed that love would never die
I dreamed that God would be forgiving
Then I was young and unafraid
And dreams were made and used and wasted
There was no ransom to be paid
No song unsung, no wine untasted

But the tigers come at night
With their voices soft as thunder
As they tear your hope apart
As they turn your dream to shame

He slept a summer by my side
He filled my days with endless wonder
He took my childhood in his stride
But he was gone when autumn came

And still I dream he’ll come to me
That we will live the years together
But there are dreams that cannot be
And there are storms we cannot weather

I had a dream my life would be
So different from this hell I’m living
So different now from what it seemed
Now life has killed the dream I dreamed.

I think everybody was naive about female hypergamy until it was unleashed.

I recently had some drinks with a few friends, including a 70-something father of one of my friends. Discussions veered socio-political. He (the older man) is an old-school deeply religious Catholic and a consevative. However, he doesn’t get it on hypergamy because it wasn’t part if his reality growing up. It was an interesting conversation. He really thought that women were noble angels, and his other son’s continued singleness despite his being a nice guy with a job didn’t help him connect two and two.

My parents will be seventy soon and I see the disconnect you do. In fact, anyone who is “off the market” has little appreciation for the challenges single people face these days. I had a debate with my mother over Thanksgiving as she tried to explain to me why the 50s weren’t so great. You couldn’t even buy a house on your own, she exclaimed! To which I replied: why would you want to buy a house on your own? I have my own house. Big frickin’ deal. I live in it ALONE. (Actually I’m very grateful for my house, but you get my drift. I’d rather have a fuller family in it.)

There has been a power shift and both men and women know it. Whereas before women kept their bodies locked up and might tease men with a hint of cleavage, men keep their providership locked up and taunt women with the knowledge that they could take care of them, if they wanted to, but they don’t.

When there wasn’t the pill, or the morning after pill, or easy abortions, everyone had to think about the condsequences of their actions. Now its assumed that there aren’t consequences when there actually are; instead of being physical, they’re psychological.

My biology still tells me to act in certain ways no matter what my head says. There is no known cure for the mental upheaval of pms that I know of. And there is no check to a man’s impulse to withdraw after intimacy even if there isn’t a biological advantage. Modern men and women both have been able to get what they *thought* they wanted, yet no one seems very happy.

F “happiness.” The term has morphed into the idea of supersaturated selfishness, which is why spoiled princesses in the west, whose lives are better in every measurable and non-measurable way than 99% of all people who ever lived, still manage to convince themselves, “I’m just not haaapppyyyy.”

Happily, our language affords connotational nuance. I prefer the Christian idea of “joy,” which is a part of human worth, but not the central focus, as it is in the childish complaint-think of the modern woman.

“Always be prepared to make a defense to any one who calls you to account for the hope that is in you.” — 1 Paul 3:15

Re: Older guys – My dad’s kind of an odd duck, talking to him about women, relationships, dating, sex, or anything even remotely connected to the subject is like talking to an Eskimo about a jungle on an alien planet. My uncle views women as odd, irrational, silly children who must be protected, primarily from themselves. They are in their 80’s and experienced the last gasp of an age that probably started after the Napoleonic wars and started to die in the aftermath of WW II. The age in which women were seen as noble, innocent li’l angels, nurturing, good, virtuous and caring.
When I tell them that shaved-headed, goateed, tattooed jail bird drug dealers get all the girls, while the clean-cut Nice Guys(TM) with decent jobs and good character can (quite literally) go fuck themselves, they draw a complete blank or just think I’m having them on.

Before anyone slams too hard on Pope Pius VI, remember the era he lived in, how old he was when he made these statements which seemed more anti-male and less anti-female, and that he was born raised and lived most of his life in a more traditional Western culture, namely 20th century Italy, than we do now. Italy wasn’t that different from the USA in the late 1980s and I’m sure it is less different now. Most of the 20th century, Italy was more traditionally Western and less modernly Western than the USA. Women’s hypergamy was more restrained in the USA in the 1960s than now when he uttered these statements and Italian women’s hypergamy was even more restrained than American women’s hypergamy in the 1960s. Now both Italian and American women socially are less restrained in their hypergamy, although it seems Italian marriage and divorce laws are more equitable between men and women than American marriage and divorce laws that favor women over men which explains why Italy has a 11% divorce rate and the USA has a 50% divorce rate. I was born in 1968, and I like almost all American men my age believed much as Pope Pius VI did when were eighteen years of age in 1986. We were taught and brainwashed to believe in the pretty lies and were eating the “BLUE PILL”.. By 1990, when I was 22 I accepted the harsh truths about women’s nature and had swallowed the “RED PILL”. When I had first come to this site and others like it 3 years ago, most of what I read here and other sites, I already knew from harsh experience. I did learn many things here though, and for that I am grateful. I try to tell these things to other men and show them these sites. Still even with more innformation out there because of women’s less restrained hypergamy and the internet providing more information about the truth, most men prefer the pretty lies to the harsh truth. How could Pius VI know more than what he did? He couldn’t. He knew more than almost everyone when he was alive though. I wonder if Heartiste was raised Catholicas I was or had a Catholic parent(s) like I did even if he wasn’t raised Catholic? Sometimes it reads like it.

The Italians rarely marry anymore…nor are they having children. For generations large families were the norm, and now few people under the age of 35 have children (seriously almost no one…I have 50 cousins and only one has a child), with the exception of recent immigrants.

Back when birth control was largely unavailable (technically illegal) abortions and herbal abortificants were ubiquitous.

Older conservatives like Larry Auster also have a blind spot on hypergamy. While Auster spares women no quarter, he can’t bring himself to examine principles of Game as a logical and effective response to female hypergamy. When first introduced to this subject several years ago, he freaked out and called Chateau founders awful names like “whoremonger.”

Off-topic, but I thought this was funny- left-leaning British newspaper the Guardian has been doing a lot of articles on internet dating recently. One in particular was a conversational back-n-forth style piece featuring Jill Filopovic, some sort of relatively prominent voice of the femosphere.

In particular, she says this:
“And there’s that complaint from men – she shows up and she’s completely different from what they expected from her photos, and they act as if they have been radically deceived”
(suggesting men are bad or shallow for feeling “radically deceived” when a woman puts up a misleading profile pic). Is it any wonder her dates feel deceived?? – Look at here here:

Deception is what women do naturally. They wear makeup to disguise their imperfections on a daily basis. They used to wear “falsies” to improve their bosoms, but obviously in today’s climate that would be joke. Imagine criticizing a woman for wearing makeup. She would think you were a misogynist. I suspect they think touching up their photos is in anyway different from their other daily, trivial deceptions.

Online ‘dating’ = fake profiles (those are the attractive ones), Single Moms(TM) of any age (14-55, did you know that their children are their world?) and Fatsos (it’s the thyroid….).
Sure, they can lie to me at the bar, they can wear fake hair, fake nails, fake boobs, fake asses, fake eyelashes, fake just about everything short of kidneys, BUT at least I know that a)She exists, b)She’s not in Ukraine, and c) I can take an educated guess at what her actual age might be.
No make-up can hide 50+ hands.

Actually, I’d keep the dog, too. In fact, I much prefer dogs/cats/birds/tarantulas over about 99% of women you find online (who actually exist). This morning, I said ‘sorry’ to the Black Widow who lives under the cover protecting my main water turnoff from frost. Tub needed work.
I have among my acquaintances precisely 1 person who has actually been successful on a ‘dating’ site. She got one of those 3-day free trial offers from Match, clamped herself to the ‘puter over a long weekend, contacted every guy within x number of miles she found in any way appealing, gave them a way to contact her and unsubscribed before she was charged a dime. To no one’s surprise, she’s a Trekkie nerd, so cyberspace is her natural habitat, and the guy she ended up with is – you guessed it – a fellow Trekkie nerd.
However, he must think that he hit the online ‘dating’ jackpot: She’s about a 6 (which makes her a 9 among actual real life online females), in terrific physical shape at 40 (she goes dancing, hiking and plays sports), fun, friendly and quirky and has no kids.
I’ve never seen the guy (Single Dad), but I’m guessing he’s pretty tall……..

Notice right at the start of the interview with Strudwick and Filipovic, Strudwick (the man) is a lot less enthusiastic about Internet dating … “Then reality hit.” How could it be any different? I’m with Roosh, if you’re a heterosexual man, Internet dating sucks, end of story. Get off the computer and approach.

“Pope Paul VI, apparently, was as far-seeing as I. Yet his vision of the good world, the civilized world — a vision with which I find no quarrel — would, if it were fully realized, necessarily mean a lot less fun for me.”

so you’re having a lot of fun when you have sex with several different girls … but don’t you feel bad when you have to dump them? For me, having to hurt someone would destroy all the fun. Do you never feel any guilt??
And why do you always have relationships/sex with “easy” girls, wouldn’t it feel better to find a perfect woman and marry her? I think you once said that it’s better to have sex with one 10 than with ten 8s … or something like that.
I know a solution for you … you should find a really pretty young girl who’s also smart and feminine and empathetic with your paranoid blog and then you two would fall in love with each other and have babies together! That’s a much better idea than sleeping with different girls and having to hurt them every time when you get bored with them … SO just find someone who is so perfectly beautiful that you will never get bored with her and then fall in love with her ❤

There is one way by which you can reconcile evidence of female hyprgamy with a traditional attitude of “bad, bad men were doing to those poor innocent wimmins” — you can do so when you assume no female agency — that women really are passive objects of male agency, and today’s liberalized female is merely doing what (male-created) culture incentivises them to do. In this worldview, the same women would really be innocent angels given a Kinder, Kirche, Kuche social context.

However, this “bad, bad men were doing to those poor innocent wimmins” worldview is incompatible wiht any significant female participation in public life.

A corollary of sorts: a woman is helpless (and therefore hypergamous) around an alpha just like a man would be around a willing 10. Some might remember a 1980s scandal involving US Marines guarding the US Embassy in communist Moscow falling for beautiful Russian female agents who seduced them to obtain sensitive information. It’s just that the reality of most men is such that willing 10s are extremely rare.

I think feminism got us to intentionally disregard a lot of what used to be commom sense.

We’ve known about hypergamy and female sexuality for a long time. ‘The Taming of the Shrew”, a great vignette about a dude & his fiancee in Don Quixote, Wuthering Heights (Heathcliffe IS the dark triad), Madame Bovary, Anna Karenina, Vantity Fair, etc. The list goes on for ever.

Knowing truth served us so well that we disassociated Truth from its benefits. Pretty Lies are nice, but the Gods of the Copybook Headings don’t give a shit how Pretty the Lies are. They’re lies and they will kill.

Interesting note: I have never considered reading WH because I thought it was just womens claptrap. I now hear that there is a new movie version,with Heathcliff being…Buh-LACK!! Come on now!! Reading up on this I discovered a theory that H. was actually Irish,as he was found(asa child) poor and hungry in Liverpool. (The Pool being the most Irish city in the UK) he ngrows up to demonstarte the Dark Triad. Maybe I should be reading this book….

Silent war Genocide. Hitler’s slogan Arbeit macht frei – WORK BRINGS FREEDOM. Anyone who refuses to feed themselves must either die or become enslaved. Today warfare, cotton-pickin, and gas chambers have been replaced with the CUBICLE, food,chem trails, birth control, education . The conclusion remains the same. No life. No freedom.

I don’t think it was Hitler who coined that phrase, and a more apt translation would be “labor will set you free”. Other than that, the crazy is strong in this one. I’d rather sit in a cubicle than be worked to death in a concentration camp.

SOCRATES
As to a marriage or celibacy, let a man take which he will, for he is sure to repent.
My advice to you is get married: if you find a good wife, you’ll be happy; if not, you’ll become a philosopher.

EURIPIDES
Man’s best possession is a sympathetic wife.

ARISTOTLE
This is the reason mothers are more dedicated to children than fathers: it is that they suffer more in giving them birth and are more certain that they are their own.

AESCHYLUS
Wiles and deceits are female qualities.

AESCHYLUS
Unions in wedlock are perverted by the victory of shameless passion that masters the female among men and beasts. Woman is the salvation or destruction of the family. She carries its destiny in the folds of her mantle.

“For the innate rule that governs women’s conduct, though it is secret and unformulated, nay, unconscious in its working, is this: We are justified in deceiving those who think they have acquired rights over the species by paying little attention to the individual, that is, to us.

The constitution and, therefore, the welfare of the species have been placed in our hands and committed to our care, through the control we obtain over the next generation, which proceeds from us; let us discharge our duties conscientiously. But women have no abstract knowledge of this leading principle; they are conscious of it only as a concrete fact; and they have no other method of giving expression to it than the way in which they act when the opportunity arrives.

And then their conscience does not trouble them so much as we fancy; for in the darkest recesses of their heart, they are aware that in committing a breach of their duty towards the individual, they have all the better fulfilled their duty towards the species, which is infinitely greater”

General rule: Never underestimate the ability for encyclicals to contain meanings.

With regard to the beta angle, it reminds me of the passage in the bible about parents not nagging lest their children lose heart. I submit that the missing aspect identified by CH is only missing on the surface, but that the passage can be read to contain the beta bitterness angle. Have not beta’s lost respect for women? Have they not been taking the red pill –maybe not in droves, but maybe these things go parabolic? Note the passage doesn’t restrict itself to beta’s using contraception with women, but contraceptive use as a whole. Women don’t get knocked up by their alpha cock carousel. So they stay on it longer, with different effects….

The Christian religion, and the Catholic Church especially, deals mostly with the higher aspirations and motivations of mankind. However, this doesn’t leave much room for accounting for the everyday, base, animal nature of humanity. The arguments against contraception are an appeal to the higher nature. Lower nature (in this case, hypergamy in women and the need for sexual variety in men) aren’t accounted for much by Christianity. When that sense of a higher nature, man’s connection to a sense of holiness in life, is lost by the larger culture (which is what seventy years of nihilism, feminism, atheism and deconstructivism has done to us) no appeal to it is going to sound logical. Which is a shame, but hardly means the Pope is wrong. He was addressing the problem from a different position, albeit one that might not be particular valid for most people these days.

Catholics tend not to approach things from a “do this or you’re going to hell” position. We leave the heavy guilt trips to the Evangelicals and the Baptists. However, the Church doesn’t often get down into the nitty-gritty of human nature or human behavior and really explain it on that base level (you think a priest would ever say the stuff CH says?). That’s all I was trying to say.

I know what sin is. Let me try to clarify – what I meant was that this is an appeal to idealism, a statement of “this is what you should be trying to achieve because that’s what God calls you to be”. It is not an argument from the position of “this is what your base nature is.” The arguments against contraception are against killing and in favor of the dignity of human nature and the sacredness of fertility. The arguments against contraception are not about a women’s quest for alpha seed and how providing her contraception is going to release that, to society-killing effect. One deals with the spiritual. One deals with the physical. There’s plenty in the Bible about human nature and its corrosive effects if left unrestricted, but in this case specifically, that’s not what’s on the table. That make more sense?

Thought is good but action is better, and that’s something I learnt from Mencius Moldbug. So what would the Chateau recommendations for action on this issue be? Electoral attempts to restrict contraception are bound to fail, and will boomerang on any conservative stupid enough to use them. War on Women War on Women War on women. So there must be a better, slyer way of getting things done to avoid the apocalypse. Assuming, of course, that you are interested in preventing the apocalypse.
Throughout history, change has only occurred because great men stood up against all odds and fought for what they valued. Spain would be muslamic central today had it not been for the Reconquista- those guys could have pointed and laughed like a jester as well, but they decided they had to do something about it.

You cannot flow against the tide of history. There is, in fact, very little that _can_ be done at this point. If our current social arrangements really are unsustainable, then they will not last. But our individual actions are unlikely to turn the tide. All that can be done at this point is to watch Rome crumble and set up small scale communities that resist dominant trends.

I have said this before. There are only two decent options for any self respecting man in our current society:

1. The Heartiste option. Make hay while the sun shines. Hang out poolside and bang as many bitches as you can.

2. The Benedict option. Marry a virgin and wall yourself off as much as possible with your wife and kids in a small religious community.

Throughout history, change has only occurred because great men stood up against all odds and fought for what they valued. Spain would be muslamic central today had it not been for the Reconquista- those guys could have pointed and laughed like a jester as well, but they decided they had to do something about it.

I like the cut of your jib, bro. When the fray comes, I got your back.

Let me just add here that I think Heartiste is already doing a great job, if the 21st century Reconquista ever does happen, he will be remembered as one of the sparks that lit the fire. I’m just wondering how to convert all this wisdom into practical technology that serves purposes other than profiting from the collapse of civilization.

You ever known an American to accept half measures on anything? The only way to correct the problem is to reverse it; ban birth control in all its forms. Short of that, you’re never putting women back in what most of my generation would term “the patriarchy’s cage”

The Catholic church never liked men thinking
—Yawn. Me thinks the bitch knows no history.

and it is the second to last just above crazy cultists one should probably point to as a source of truth.
—2000 years of philosophy and science, but it was one step above “crazy cultists” to this ignorant black bitch.

Ah, so rather than admit your jumping the gun in your overexcitement at the claim of my ignorance, you feign indifference after the fact.

You are beginning to seem very much like a puppet who jumps on every “let’s hate on Nicole” bandwagon, without actually considering the validity or historical truth of the content of my posts.

Dare I say that this is typical of brainwashed cultists who, upon hearing any criticism of their faith, clap their hands over their ears and begin chanting rather than analyzing the argument and replying in a rational manner?

It may not be pro-sexuality, but for an order of men who are supposed to be devoted to God and the preaching of His Word, often itinerantly, well…

The Bible makes several points about the distractions that women cause, up to and including turning men to false gods… a heinous distraction, indeed.

The only point being, however, is the celibacy is for the priesthood, not every man.

Also note that one of the initial changes when Protestantism came along, and a less-itinerant mode of Christian preaching came to be the norm, pastors now took wives and become more like the flocks they shepherded.

I’ll let wiser heads than mine debate the merits thereof… and dumber heads rail against the easy targets of obvious indiscretions and outright perversions of some members of the priesthood who were more men of whole cloth rather than proper candidates for priesthood.

You are beginning to seem very much like a puppet who jumps on every “let’s hate on Nicole” bandwagon, without actually considering the validity or historical truth of the content of my posts.

Don’t make yourself even bigger than you already are… when you spew your bullshit and get called on it (to wit: dismissing the 2000 year history of the Catholic Church as “one step above crazy cultists”), then yes, I will second that.

And when you go into the usual Nicole-babble mode of oddities, like trying to make it that voodoo dolls, as people know them today, are actually European instead of African, well… that’s a weirdness that begs mockery.

Why the hell do you think they’re called “voodoo” dolls… even if there’s a technicality somewhere that you can attempt your Afrocentrist distraction or obfuscation over?

Your continued folderol is the prime example of swallowing camels and choking on gnats.

I’ll leave the further stalwart defense of the Catholic Church, or apologetics in re its historical warps and woofs, to wiser heads than mine who are Catholic themselves… of which King A seems a worthy champion.

So, as I suspected, you’re just on this bandwagon because it’s against me. Everything I say must be wrong to you just because I said it. You’re not even Catholic, and I presume from prior postings, not in the habit of punching women you outweigh, much less in the mouth which, after the first time one does that, one discovers is not as comfortable as it looks in the movies. Yet it seemed like such a good idea at the time.

I’ll give you that protestant is a little better about allowing men to think, but not much better in the men actually doing that.

Many of us Vodounsi view Jesus (whether real or symbolic) as an avatar of Obatala, the emissary of the (speculated) Creator, Olodumare. Granted, for us, he’s on a similar level to Buddha or Krishna, but his role was important. You may not be willing to take advice from someone you consider an outsider, but I am so because reading and studying all the information I could find on the matter, I realized that Jesus is more foreign to me than other embodiments of Obatala who have walked this Earth. You obviously feel differently about it, which is your prerogative.

However, if it is your aim to be a better Christian, you would do well to study the origins of your faith, and its mother faith, Judaism. When you know them, it will no more damage your connection with Christ than it does the millions of other Christians who have found a balance between Christianity and their ancestral faiths.

To know that much of Psalms was lifted from praises to Egyptian deities takes nothing from their beauty. To understand who Abraham (whether real or legendary) was really worshiping makes it no less amazing. That some of the Bible makes sense and some of it doesn’t does not take away from its value as a work. You lose nothing from simply knowing more.

It is my hope that one day you also explore your own ancestral faiths, and make peace with them. You don’t need to adopt them, but you need to understand that the church saved your people from nothing but your money.

We have some greedy bastards in Africa pretending at Vodun as well, complete with people going into debt and selling their children to work in chocolate plantations and on farms. So I don’t claim some superiority of belief system institutionally. Greed becomes a problem when any religion becomes organized. It’s just that like real Vodunsi in Africa who rescue children and educate people, real Christians should own up and put their asses on the line to stand up against the traitors and psychos in their midst.

Take it or leave it. It’s just my opinion, but it’s far more educated than one who believes people who died from minor scratches had a higher level of medical and scientific knowledge than people for whom scarification was a rite of passage.

The SYFY channel specializes in weird B-movie genetic monsters… I know they recently advertised a movie with a Sharktopus in the title, and the Licktalottapus is from a joke about lesbian dinosaurs that went extinct.

“Voodoo” dolls are what people who don’t know history call poppets, the use of which in sympathetic magic originated in Canaan and was popularized in Europe, not Africa.

This little piggy, by the way, is old enough to be your mama, but were you my son, you’d have a better attitude towards women because I’ve never been a whore.

When you fire a shot, you give your position. I’m very firmly cool with my place, so I respect men who behave like men. I have no respect for pissants who brag about beating up people who they know are weaker than themselves and can’t do them any real physical harm. Those kinds of vermin, I don’t believe deserve any mercy or respect.

So keep the ignorant attempts at insults flying. It only proves what a pathetic imbecile you are.

“Voodoo” dolls are what people who don’t know history call poppets, the use of which in sympathetic magic originated in Canaan and was popularized in Europe, not Africa.

All of your babble doesn’t alter the fact that the both denotation and connotation of voodoo is firmly ensconced amongst negroes… in the Caribbean, circa Africa.

1. A religion practiced chiefly in Caribbean countries, especially Haiti, syncretized from Roman Catholic ritual elements and the animism and magic of slaves from West Africa, in which a supreme God rules a large pantheon of local and tutelary deities, deified ancestors, and saints, who communicate with believers in dreams, trances, and ritual possessions. Also called vodoun.
[from Louisiana French voudou, ultimately of West African origin; compare Ewe vodu guardian spirit]

Okay, Greg, you’ll have to explain this to me. What did his reference to “voodoo dolls” mean that was not an ignorant implication that science and philosophy are only 2000 years old?

And what of the science and philosophy that was suppressed by the church for the better part of that? Was it a “shit test” to see who would insist that the Earth was round and rotated around the Sun despite the death and/or torture penalty for heresy?

We’re all supposed to forget now, the people the church had executed for adhering to different philosophies, and for practicing science and medicine without their endorsement?

Forget the priests thing which may or may not be anti male hype. We’re supposed to be cool with the known, real, and well witnessed cases of nuns bruising little boys’ hands for minor misbehavior?

Sorry, but this church does not seem pro male to me. It seems to me that in this church, men are but tools and useful idiots. You’re the enforcement arm and ATMs on incubators of a massive herd.

You should consider, at the very least, being less attached to it as a mental teat rather than a convenient community, or joining a church that is actually more pro masculinity.

Okay, Greg, you’ll have to explain this to me. What did his reference to “voodoo dolls” mean that was not an ignorant implication that science and philosophy are only 2000 years old?

The reference was nothing more than his attempt at an insult, comparing your odd statement about the Catholic Church being one step above the crazy cults (as we know them today, e.g., Jim Jones, David Koresh, etc.) with the primitive thought patterns of those who stick pins in voodoo dolls today, the direct connotation being fellow negroes.

He was not implying all science and philosophy stemmed from only the Catholic Church, nor that those disciplines were merely 2000 years old.

Your ability to misread into things and see shadows where none exist are beyond even the usual marked talent of your gender for such things.

Okay, Greg, you’ll have to explain this to me. What did his reference to “voodoo dolls” mean that was not an ignorant implication that science and philosophy are only 2000 years old?

The reference was nothing more than his attempt at an insult, comparing your odd statement about the Catholic Church being one step above the crazy cults (as we know them today, e.g., Jim Jones, David Koresh, etc.) with the primitive thought patterns of those who stick pins in voodoo dolls today, the direct connotation being fellow negroes.

He was not implying all science and philosophy stemmed from only the Catholic Church, nor that those disciplines were merely 2000 years old.

Your ability to misread into things and see shadows where none exist are beyond even the usual marked talent of your gender for such things.

As far as any further stalwart defense of the Catholic Church itself or apologetics of their historical highs and lows, I leave that to the Catholics… of which King A seems a worthy representative. I myself am simply Christian, with a Protestant upbringing.

lol. Is warpig still valiantly trying to defend her negroness’s idiotic superstition?

This little piggy, by the way, is old enough to be your mama
—lol. So you’re old AND stupid AND ignorant AND skanky AND ugly. Thanks, warpig!

who brag about beating up people who they know are weaker than themselves and can’t do them any real physical harm
—I thought I’d never been ina fight before? Do try to keep your bullshit consistent, warpig. You are not dealing with women or the fag-men of the left here, oinky (except Jason Sweetheart, of course).

When you fire a shot, you give your position.
—lmao. Actually, if you knew anything about a man’s world, honey, you’d know it takes at least two shots to find a position.

Now tell us all again how catholicism is just a crazy cult and did nothing for science and philosophy. Oh yeah, and how your little voodoo dolls are “equal” to catholic symbols and practices.

Funny you should mention that… awhile back, a friends wife started in with me about the Bible and the supposed contents therein, to my utter amazement, since I had been a long-time student of Scripture and couldn’t recall any of what she claimed.

Turns out, she was talking about what she read from the Da Vinci Code, and quoting that tripe as if it were historical fact, if not outright gospel.

At the time, I hadn’t heard of the Da Vinci Code, so when I did my research and found it was, in fact, a novel, I damn near split a gut laughing.

it is astounding how many people know what they know ( which means they know almost nothing ) because they have seen it in a Hollywood movie ( or read it in a novel)

I can not tell you how many times I have had debates with people who were talking about things that are not so, are not true, are not facts, and they would eventually tell me in a condescending tone ” Haven’t you seen the movie???”

the damage Hollywood has done is immense , it is as bad or worse than medieval superstitions.

True for the most part… a constant source of amusement, though, is a friend’s brother, who is probably one of the least-educated men I have ever know, yet never fails to amaze with pulling some arcane reference or cerebral quote from literature or history out of thin air.

I’d ask, near incredulously: “How did you know about that?”

Invariably, he mention an episode of The Simpsons or Family Guy… or the occasional movie.

About this really bad self loathing typical of not only white liberals but jews,
could it be that because Israel has to be harsh on Palesitnians, many jews feel guilty and are trying to redempt themselves by self flagellation trhough this self loathing that is embedded in everything from Hollywood to tv shows to the news?

Jews did not own black slaves as far as I know so why are they so full of self loathing?

Six millions of them were ” exterminated” between 1939 and 1945 and yet they feel guilty and are full of slef loathing???

CF, you are very perceptive about Jews. They are the most guilty-feeling people on earth, and it started way before the Palestinian situation. You can see much of this in the Old Testament too. I think it has a lot to do with their forgiveness teachings within Judaism. They are the classic scape goats of history, yet they forgive all their oppressors in spite of what God tells them to do in the Old Testament when they first showed mercy and forgiveness for their enemies. They have a lot of sympathy for the downtrodden, even though that sympathy is misplaced at times, as God tells them.

Look how they forgave the Germans and have very good relationship with Germany. I think it’s unprecedented in human history that a nation which has been so badly transgressed against will forgive the ones who sinned against it. Show me any nation worthy of respect that will do this? That’s why it’s always an open season on Israel in the media when it’s clear the Palestinians are wrong. Jews don’t show enough rage towards their enemies. They need to step it up if they want to survive what the Muslims have in store.

Slavery of blacks is nothing compared to the holocaust and it happened over 150 years ago. If blacks can let go of their hate for whites for slavery, there wouldn’t be much racist hate in this country, as I think most of it emanates from them towards Whites, and a little bit towards them from a few white-Supremacist. If Jews can forgive for a lot more egregious destruction than slavery, I think it’s time for Blacks to take a lesson from the Jews.

[…]…In the second part, only negative aspects of the unfavored individuals are reported. This starts a downward spiral of de-legitimization in the public eye in which the harder unfavored individuals try to get public exposure, the more negative and unflattering that exposure becomes until, finally, nobody wants to be associated with the ideas of beliefs of the unfavored individuals.

this is exactly what is being done to the political right ; only bad things were reported about Bush for 8 years or Romney before the elections

but the same thing is happenign in every Western nation; only bad things are being reported about the right

and it is also what is being done to the USA in all other nations; for example here in Canada our media is not so sublty anti-USA ( except when they talk about Obama but he is anti-USA so no surprise there ) to the point that in my corner of the world, saying I am pro-USA often ( but not always ) gets me the same reaction as if I said I was a pedophile ; looks of horror

that is what has been happening since the 1960s; dynamic silence against the political right (and against white males too by the feminist-friendly media)

the same is happening with crimes; if a white attacks a black it is front page news for a long time but even though more blacks attack whites this is rarely reported.

the same with gays; under reported crimes for them too but crimes against gays are front pages news and for a long time

no wonder some of us have been calling it “the controlled media”

ok so we know how it is done and against whom

but why ???

why are white liberals bashing their own civilization , their own race, their own culture???

CF, another good observation on your part. You will find that the media is pretty left all over the west, and very anti-American. For example, the CBC is child’s play compared to the BBC.

The BBC is notorious about its selectivity. For months there was a community in the UK, which was terrorized by Islamic youth, like they were attacking English girls and the info wasn’t reported on purpose, in order not to offend Muslims sensibilities. But the English media had no problems at the same time reporting about English gangs protecting their neighborhoods or chanting anti-Islamic slogans. Talk about double standard exercised against whites, and all around self-hate.

Many English people feel absolutely guilty over Great Brittan’s (GB) colonial history. I have spoken to some of them, and I have some friends from there, and it was exasperating how much guilt and self-loathing they have. Some of them even refuse to acknowledge that GB was actually a great force of good, bringing science and technology to many undeveloped nations around the world.

I think self-loathing has a lot to do with the liberal mindset. The idea is that you are to blame yourself first, before you cast the first stone. Much of it comes from Judeo- Christian values, which have been inculcated in the west for 2,000 years, and are still prevalent even years after most of Europe turned pagan or atheists.

And the British media absolutely hates its own conservatives, as well as US conservatives/Republican party. It used to beat on Bush to no end. I assume it beat on Regan too during his time, in spite of their own conservative leader Mrs. Thatcher at the time. Not only that, but the British media thinks Americans are uneducated hillbillies, especially if they vote for a Republicans. Talk about an air of elitism. You’ll find it very prevalent with all leftists. The British media repeatedly spewed the anti-conservative rhetoric hurled at Romney by the US media at every chance it got. Yet, they absolutely luv luv luv Obama. He is a messiah; he can do no wrong according to them. Also, I find in the UK they like to play up the racist anti-American rhetoric at every chance they get. Basically, the rule of thumb is if a leader is not good for America (usually a democrat), the foreign media and the US media loves him. If a leader has conservative patriotic love for American, like a Regan or a Bush, then they despise him.

It’s too bad their media in the UK is so bad when the people are still not that liberal socially, if not politically, compared to the media. They still have the Victorian approach to sex and marriage, but that’s quickly fading away with their media glamorizing British girls getting drunk in pubs. They have liberal forces in their media trying to break down English society. The media is liberal in every country in the west. I think it’s a phenomena that stems from “guilt” over European colonialism and imperialism, which the left uses to its advantage. There is a reason they love to make people feel guilty about their whiteness. I think it’s the same in Canada, the way they cater to Muslims and blacks.

That’s why I say liberal media is not a Jewish issue. There aren’t many Jews in the BBC or in most of the European media, and yet they are even more liberal than the US media. The Media in every western nation is plagued by liberals, and that’s the real issue.

Out of curiosity I just went to a white nationalist site and read a few articles, one was describing all the jews have done since the 1920s and are still doing to bring decay to the USA

here is an excerp,

“[…] Blame must also be placed on the organized Jewish community which has used its control over the entertainment and news media, academia, and the professions, as well as its vast wealth, to corrupt all aspects of American politics, business, and culture and to engineer and promote multiculturalism, mass non-white immigration, miscegenation, racial integration, and a poisonous culture of white self-hatred and non-white truculence.”

it is hard to deny they have done a lot of bad things ( although they had help form various white liberals )

I am not convinced the jews are to blame for everything but they certainly are playing a role in this decay of the USA

But leftism is obviously lowering the buying power of regular citizens

I just watched the news hour on PBS and even that leftist tv station can not deny the social programs in the US are so expensive that the situation is unsustainable

my problem is that if this leftism is making everyone poorer how do jews benefit from it?

Jews may or may not be guilty of causing all this – I am not convinced either way – but let’s say they are

how do Jews benefit from a nation in moral and financial decay almost going bankrupt and its citizen getting poorer?

CF, The white nationalist would have had more credibility in my eyes had they focused on liberals of all kinds, instead of the “organized Jewish Community” and “its vast wealth.” It has the air of resentment regarding Jewish wealth, which I already picked up upon when I argued with some of the white-supremacists around here. In addition, most of the liberal Jews are middle-class and upper middle-class. They are not in the billionaire category, though there are some Jewish billionaires. However, there are more non-Jewish multi-millionaires and billionaires in existence.

As I said, in Europe there aren’t many Jews, let alone in the government or the media or universities, or what have you, and yet European nations are even more leftist and liberal that the USA? How do they explain that?

That’s why this argument doesn’t hold water and reeks of resentment and scapegoating.

Look at the media, particularly MSNBC. Other than Andria Mitchel, who else is Jewish there, and who else was dumping and trashing Romney every day and night during the election season? Lawrence O’Donnell (who is a Hollywood hack, non-Jewish)?, Rachel Maddow (who was raised Catholic and only her paternal grandfather was Jewish)?, Al Sharpton (the Black street thug and clown)?, Chris Mathews (who is probably the stupidest person on TV and has a thrill up his leg for Obama, non-Jewish)?, Keith Olbermann (who is a nutcase of German descent who used to have a show there, non-Jewish)? That’s who was trashing Romney day in and day out, and that’s who is peddling leftist ideology with such gusto.

That’s why I say, it’s liberals of all shape and sizes, mostly whites that are destroying America. However, since many Jews are liberals, they got swept in with the rest of the liberals. Then you have blacks and all the other minorities who have helped the white liberals get power through the democratic party and you have a majority of leftists who are running the country – whites, Jews, and minorities. And yet, 30% of the Jewish community is not liberal and didn’t vote for Obama Mamma. So not all Jews are to blame as some here would have you believe.

Then white nationalists accuse the Jews since the 1920s. Remember during the 1920’s, which the white nationalists website cites, and which was the progressive era with Wilson and then Roosevelt, the Jews weren’t in the government, academia, or the media, and Hollywood was still young and didn’t have much influence, yet white liberals of that era were able to corrupt the culture all by themselves, without much Jewish help.

Remember the roaring 20s with Margret Mead and the Flappers? Who knows what I am talking about? These were the originators of the feminist movement and they were all sluts, preaching free sexuality and living with the sexual freedom of men. It’s worth reading their escapades and what they stood for. They weren’t Jewish, and yet they had a tremendous power over the 1960s and 1970s feminists. I say much of what happened in the 1960s really began in the 1920s. It just got interrupted by the rise of Hitler in 1933, and WWII which lasted from 1939-1945. Then, it got picked up again in the 1960s and 1970s. Therefore, much of liberalism in this country didn’t originate with the Jews.

That’s why I’m not convinced it’s all a Jewish conspiracy some demented and hateful types are peddling around. And I actually think it’s very dangerous to think like that. It’s too easy to blame others instead of looking for real answers that can solve problems. It just removes responsibility from us in favor of Jewish hate.

Kids at my (Catholic) high school used to use talking points from that wretched book, plus Kevin Smith’s Dogma, in debates in class without even realizing they were doing it. I had classmates that literally burnt their issued Bibles because they all it was all bullshit, but a six-dollar paperback novel was all it took to convince them the Catholic Church was only supported by deranged albinos and should rightfully be worshiping a hooker. It was something of an epidemic. They were all genuinely convinced it was all real, until one of our teachers (an ex-nun) went after their arguments with a verbal chainsaw and humiliated quite a few of them. It’s strange, isn’t it, where people get their beliefs?

Nope, just looking at the facts. Religions with a history of thought policing at the end of a sword don’t seem all that pro masculinity to me, unless by masculinity you mean being able to smile while you give your hard earned or won gold to the Pope. I suppose that would take a good deal of strength.

Where you and other feminist programmed people see patriarchy and glory or whatever, I see smug, upper class ladies hitting knaves on the side, and fields of dead men who thought they were serving a higher purpose.

I’m not here to teach history, King. I’m here to destroy the pretty lies the dominant religions of the west sell to the slave class. You should see me tear into Muslims and new agers.

Point out an inaccuracy in anything I’ve said.

As to my opinion, to which I am entitled, based on the data, Catholocism is oppressive to men, as are most flavors of Christianity. It is a social engineering scheme as devastating to manhood as 70 virgins in the sky.

It’s hard to take seriously one who dismisses Christianity as a social engineering scheme. Opiate of the masses? Played… soooooooo played.

And any debate on that point would be moot, for both it’s daunting complexities and the inability of either side to really care about that which does not tickle their particular biases.

The effort is occasionally made, for the sake of one’s soul, and the minute possibility that someone from the peanut gallery might have their eyes opened… but for the most part the work is too grueling… as the Book says, after a reasonable amount of effort, best to just knock the dust from one’s sandals and move on.

By the way, a little personal aside, whenever you call me a marxist, I’m reminded of a boy in my high school who got into the habit of calling me a bitch every day for about two years. He called me this, I suppose, because I wasn’t interested in shagging him for in-crowd approval. I had said or done nothing to him to warrant it.

I was the kid who helped people whenever and how ever I could. I defended other kids against bullies. I tutored. I was generally a nice person, just not nice enough to open my legs just because a guy played football. I played football.

His answer to everything I said, whenever he was around and teachers weren’t, was that I was a bitch. Eventually, I embraced this and showed him what a bitch I could be when pressed.

Your answer to everything I say, I suppose, is that I’m a marxist. This is your way of saying that I must be wrong, but you can’t figure out how. It just must be wrong because it upsets you.

It upsets you, perhaps, because you’ve convinced yourself that you are okay with things that you are not okay with, and I am tapping on the door of those repressed desires to be more than you hobble yourself to stay. It’s just a guess.

It upsets you, perhaps, because you’ve convinced yourself that you are okay with things that you are not okay with, and I am tapping on the door of those repressed desires to be more than you hobble yourself to stay. It’s just a guess.

Well, King A will have to answer for himself, but my impression is that people call you a marxist because you keep coming up with all of the half-baked shibboleths that pass for philosophy by that name.

An upset evinced is, to gainsay your usual outhouse internet psychiatry, stems from annoyance at hearing the same ol’ tripe from the same ol’ type of usual suspects, and weariness in the knowledge that the best gainsay will only be ignored, and the same baggage will be delivered to the doorstep of future threads.

Greg, there is no point in debating with me about Christianity and its merits and flaws because, having had it forced on me through my childhood, and then later studying it well so I could forgive Christians for what they’d done to me, I know your Bible better than you. Your Sunday driving can’t compete with my road warrior in this.

If it helps, you are free to view me as something like a Satan who knows the “word of God”, but bear in mind I know the word of a great many gods, and criticize all of their followers who use them as justification to subjugate others or as excuses not to make the effort to free themselves from subjugation.

What do you want from me? I’m a warpig. The meek are inheriting the Earth and screwing it up.

I don’t throw the word “Marxist” around as an epithet I can’t support. I use it as a description of people who reduce history into the mere interplay between oppressors and victims, between “who” and “whom.” She would do well to understand the precise definition of the term Marxism, and more important, the alternative hermeneutics to this long-faded but inexplicably robust pseudo-academic fad. Instead she chooses to be the victim of phantom ad hominem, which only demonstrates my observation still further.

Long experience tells me there is one reaction to the following party trick:

As to my opinion, to which I am entitled, based on the data, [that man is the measure of all things/that God positively cannot exist/that all “homophobes” are secretly gay] …

Point out an inaccuracy in anything I’ve said.

To counter, “everything is inaccurate in everything you’ve said” doesn’t quite cover the permanent error-producing dynamic she has adopted and is wholly unconscious of. Therefore the best rejoinder is silence, hoping that my comprehensive prior response will be revisited and, by the grace of God, will produce a scintilla in her dark void of a mind.

Sometimes I think I’m the only women in this country who struggled with her faith as a thirteen year old, messed around with witchcraft, read the hell out of all the pro-feminist pagan fantasy out there, and still found her way back to the Catholic Church out of a sense that all of that was self-indulgent nihilism. The first bit is a common story from my generation, except it tends to end in bitterness, atheism, and sluttitude.

Canadian, I played football (what Americans call soccer) in high school. I also started with Tae Kwon Do then. I didn’t need to shag the jocks to validate myself. I was a jock in my way.

This, contrary to making me more feminist, made me less so. I hated that I was praised by feminists for being as I was, since what sparked it was understanding that I lived in a culture hostile to femininity and had better butch up to survive it.

Cynthia, I am sorry that your foray into non Christian faiths was polluted by “new age”. We share a disdain for it. I and others have been essentially shunned from the local “Pagan” community because we counter their fake “white light” and insult of the cultures they picked the convenient bits of to attempt to twist Nature to fit their wishful thinking.

Did you know the whole idea of a guilty man being allowed to appeal his verdict to a higher court came from the Church? I think we take for granted what the Church gave us. Not that I am a gbig fan of my faith,as they seem these days to be four-square pro Amensty. Sick!!

Where did you get that I believe that from? If some fundamentalist Christians want to make that statement, that’s their business. Try not to put their words into my mouth. I’ve stated before that I believe evolution shows a remarkable aspect of God’s unique genius.

The Bible itself speaks of 6 days of Creation, but the actual time is symbolic. There are other verses that say a day unto God is as 1000 years to Man, but even that can be taken symbolically.

Man himself uses the numeral 1000 to speak metaphorically, e.g., tusen takk from the Norwegians, or “1000 pardons” by the Arabs… indeed, 1001 is not unlike us saying “forever and a day”.

And, of course, there’s the thousand year Judgment Day in which Christ and the elect will bring mankind back to Adamic perfection, the Devil being bound, but let loose one last time to cull what he can from humankind one last time before he is destroyed, and with him Death, forever.

I’ve explained this before, to both believers and the snark of unbelievers… I won’t do it for you again months from now on yet another thread where the same ol’ same bushwa keeps arising.

I see, too, that you’re continuing with your Rooney Rifle approach of obfuscation… I answer one of your challenges and, without acknowledgement of the incorrectness of your original precept, you just jump right to another challenge.

Greg, you’re being tedious, so I’ll write this at elementary school level so you’ll understand.

Genesis is all legend. Nobody is sure if Adam and Eve or Abraham existed. If Sodom and Gomorrah were actually cities in the time of Abraham, then Sumeria would have been a nation long before him or them. This means that Abraham’s appeal to spare Sodom and Gomorrah would not have been the first appeal. It was also not an appeal in a court, which is what Darius was talking about.

If Jesus existed, Abraham would also not have been a Christian, as Jesus was born much later than him, if he existed.

Christians did not invent court appeals. Some “idol worshiping” Pagans did. Is that so hard to admit?

I am not a religious man at all but on the other hand I am not one of those who bashes religious people.

I have never read the bible but this agriculture thing, I have never heard such a thing before

is this a joke as it sounds quite funny

really the Adam and Eve story is actually about agriculture?

sounds like a joke to me

but as I said I do not know all that much about the Bible and related things

I am a Catholic on paper – I was Baptised – but I’m not a believer.
I only set foot in churches for weddings and funerals but as I said I am not anti-religion and certainly not anti-Christian.
Live and let live is my Motto.

Greg, you’re being tedious, so I’ll write this at elementary school level so you’ll understand.

Yes, I can be tedious at times… but I do enjoy hearing from a professional, so please continue.

Genesis is all legend. Nobody is sure if Adam and Eve or Abraham existed.

Legends have often proven to be established from true history, so your point here is immaterial, unless you can prove beyond a doubt that they (or what they represent) did not exist. For centuries Troy was treated as merely a legend, until they finally dug it up from 7 city layers deep, if memory serves.

If Sodom and Gomorrah were actually cities in the time of Abraham, then Sumeria would have been a nation long before him or them. This means that Abraham’s appeal to spare Sodom and Gomorrah would not have been the first appeal. It was also not an appeal in a court, which is what Darius was talking about.

I probably should have included a smiley icon there… it was meant as a bit tongue in cheek, which everyone knows is my style here.

If Jesus existed, Abraham would also not have been a Christian, as Jesus was born much later than him, if he existed.

And this has to do with what, beyond your usual proclivity for irrelevancies?

Christians did not invent court appeals. Some “idol worshiping” Pagans did. Is that so hard to admit?

Not at all… now, is the fact that the Catholic Church and its long and storied history is rightfully deemed a bit more than merely “one step above crazy cults”? That’s what started all this, toots.

I’m not really interested in the baggage you yourself are carrying from whatever it was you say or think that Christians did to you in the past, though it does explain your antiChrist snark.

Push comes to shove, you’ve been very open about the many layers of baggage in your life, for what woman cannot resist playing those drama roles?

Anyway, here’s an early Christmas present for you too, since this inane scenario seems to play out more often than not on these threads, and I’m getting too old for the aggravation.

Moderator, if I ever reply to any of Nicole’s posts again, ban me immediately.

Greg, you don’t prove your credibility or correctness by taking cheap shots then dramatically bowing out. That’s not how this thing works. You make your arguments and measure them against one another on a factual basis, and explain your opinion of the facts.

Now, since you seem to be having trouble keeping up, I will rehash my original point, which is that the Catholic church is not pro masculinity. Aside of being anti or at least not pro masculinity, it encourages cult like behavior from its followers, discouraging them from critical, much less free thought. Predictions about the effect of widespread availability of contraceptives could have been made by any old player, and incidentally, were made by Jewish priests since before Jesus was a twinkle…so the predictions were nothing new. See Onan.

Thusfar, none of you have presented a credible argument that the Catholic church is pro male, or that my opinion of it being only one step above a crazy cult in truth promotion is unfounded. You’ve only recycled fat jokes, defended a lying braggart who believes telling people he hits people who are weaker and smaller than him makes him look more manly, and reinforced my argument of cult follower like reactions to the hard facts about track record of enforced ignorance and stupidity in their followers.

If truth is aggravating to you, then you, my dear, are at the wrong blog.

I have never read the bible but this agriculture thing, I have never heard such a thing before

“And God saw that there was no man to till the earth…” from Genesis 2:5.

Adam was created by God to, among other things, tend the garden of Eden… and of course, later when he and Eve were expelled, one of his curses was to have to earn his bread by the sweat of his brow and toil the ground.

Some say this advent of agriculture and the general time frame of Eden (circa 6000 years) are in general agreement, and further, that it makes a case for there being other “male and female” beings before Adam, (explaining why later Cain was afraid people would seek to kill him when he was banished).

But that’s a discussion requiring more than a few sentences, and better left for another thread.

Who said anything about celibacy?
Most of the popes, cardinals, bishops, etc. had about as many hookers come over as any noble/rich guy, and monasteries were places to keep all the gay guys together and conveniently out of everybody else’s way.

Balance and rationality doesn’t get asses in the seats though. Eternal life and free love do and did.

So when I speak of large social movements, contrary to what some may believe, I do not promote the idea that all humans are or should be or operate as free thinkers. I just feel that their social engineers should be more humane. They should take some responsibility for the world they’re shaping.

Failing that, people should be notified that they should demand more of their leaders.

You cannot hope to understand masculinity, specially because you are a woman, and not a very empathetic one. Whether you like it or not the Traditional Catholic Church used to be one of the pillars of Western Civilization. Please go back and read history and you will notice how in the middle ages the only tribunals you had a chance of fair haring…wait for it…the Inquisition tribunals, hunt in the forests of the king or the local Lord? Executed, no right for reply or defence. Steal some pieces of bread to feed your family? to the dungeons until sentence is served (in the best of cases if not outright torture and execution). That was the life back then.

Were it not for the Church, the pagans you hold in such a high esteem would have destroyed all vestiges of Roman and Greek civilization in Europe, leaving every remaining piece of knowledge from the Ancient world in hands of the Arabs. Do you think the gang-rapists, warriors and marauders of the north had a penchant for Plato or Aristoteles, or Euclidean geometry? Please

Beyond that, even the heathens you hold in high esteem had a great regard towards celibacy amongst its monks and hermits (at least certain religions like Buddhism, Hinduism and ancient heathen religions of the East). Besides for the propagation of religion its obvious even for the braindead that celibacy is a convenient lifestyle (though not for everybody) if you send missionaries to hostile regions and in many cases to their untimely deaths. That is if you preach Christianity…

The traditional Catholic Church (the one from I century to the first half of 20th century) was a masculine religion and set a masculine standard and ethic system that allowed Europe to expel Islam from almost all Europe and avoid its extinction in the process, allowed the European entrepreneurship to flourish and colonial expansion to develop itself at least in America (Latin and Anglo America) and in many cases helped to preserve and build on the knowledge left from the Ancient world. Those feats for itself prove how masculine that religion was, unlike the heathen religions of the past. How masculine can a religion be when they worship a goddess?

African colonial enterprises were a mess and never integrated Africans into the Western World because of the protestant and UTTERLY RACIST Weltanschauung that you so admire.

By the way Wolfie please spare us the herstory lessons. It’s pretty obvious and fortunate that most monasteries were not cesspools of homosexuality and depravity as you portray them. Dedication to work,creativity (for inventions and hard sciences) is not the province of fags. Nowadays however that Church ceased to exist, most like before you were born, so you and your heathen friends like Nicole don`t need to fret about it.

I am agnostic, but after reading the debate/discourse between Greg/Nicole/King A, I have to admit, as crazy as some of the rants of Nicole may appear (to me) I give her props for holding her own. I respect how she articulates her worldviews, however warped they might be in reality (to me).

It only seems warped so long as there are pieces missing in the puzzle that the mind must blur with speculations. These speculations are usually based on what one is willing to believe about the world they live in.

Once those pieces are no longer missing, and one sees the big picture (as best as a human can comprehend it) this helps with the decisiveness and certainty.

Another factor is the feminist-driven imperative for women to have orgasms. These are *far more likely* to arise during sex with an alpha or caddish male who doesn’t give a shit, than with a caring beta male, fresh from studying The Joy of Sex.
The history of the techno-ideology around female orgasms needs to be studied. Was it Lawrence or Hemingway that first introduced them to popular literature in English?
In France les freres Goncourt were more on the mark, writing about how they hated it when the whores they were banging came, since it made them look momentarily sublime.

Paul told women to cover their heads, sit down and shut up in church and obey their husbands. Later on the church started worshiping Mary instead of Jesus. That’s when the Catholic distorted view of women developed.

“Later on the church started worshiping Mary instead of Jesus”. –
Wrong. The Catholic Church doesn’t worship her. That would be heresy to Catholics. They venerate her. There is a difference, ignoramus.

..and guess what. This veneration of Mary (never above the veneration of Christ) was practiced centuries before Paul VI. Yeah, those guys with swords and stuff who kicked Muslim ass during the Crusades venerated Mary and, uh, they weren’t exactly beta.

The problem is that these passages are being used to justify ends that are unbiblical, like Mary being sinless, and her perpetual virginity, and praying to her. It is for reasons like these that the Roman Catholic church doesn’t follow “sola scriptura”, because it can’t.

The Bible also states an angel said she found favor with God , Jesus was in her womb, and the Holy Spirit through Elizabeth said she was blessed among women. I’m not going to argue with God, Jesus or the Holy Spirit on her importance.

I like Mary better when think of her as a regular woman. One of my favorite Christmas cards was of a very pregnant Mary, sitting on a camel outside the inn, saying to Joseph, “I’m not hysterical, I just want to know what he means by no more vacancies.”

I think you might be thinking about the whole goddess worship thing that got started up by the feminists with The Chalice and the Blade.

The only people who worship Mary are some indigenous groups in places like Central and South America, or in Caribbean voodoo practices. It tends to be a blending, though, of older native Indian and/or African religions. Not pure Christianity. Roman Catholicism doesn’t engage in anything like this.

No, the whole “goddess worship thing” started when man first began speculating on where it all came from. Your Ancestors worshiped at least a few goddesses before they got either fooled or forcibly converted into Christianity. For Hindus and many Africans, it never ceased. Europeans began reclaiming it in significant numbers in modern times. One of its most influential proponents, Aleister Crowley, was no feminist and was very pro masculinity. He was called a sexist on many occasions, and fluffy new agers despise him to this day.

There is Paganism aside of college age experimental Lesbians playing at Dianan Wicca.

Did I call myself a Thelemite? or did I just reference him as an example of a well known and influential Pagan who was very not feminist?

In my opinion, Mr. Crowley was afflicted with a similar arrogance with regards to Nature, to the vast majority of Christians. You fear death, so you make yourself believe that it is not the end of your identity. You have far too much invested in your specialness, so regardless of which belief system you manufacture or co opt, you try to twist it into not meaning your particles dispersed and reassembled into other objects that may or may not be living.

Odd that… I find it’s most often the unbelievers who lack courage in re dying far more than the faithful.

Or are you merely parroting the Comedy Central School Of Religion and Philosophy, in which the expected snark of the late Professor Carlin and his faculty is that man invented god because he fears death?

Obviously there have been both gods and goddesses for as long as the human race has existed, and yes, I am aware that my ancestors, many generations removed, worshipped goddesses and mountains and bulls and hung iron over cribs to keep the faeries from stealing their babies and a whole host of other things. I was referencing, like you mentioned, the modern goddess theory that postulates that humanity was a perfect, matriarchal society until men came in with their male gods and destroyed it all. That’s probably paraphrasing, but you get the idea.

Modern paganism, Wicca, was created in the twentieth century, and has as much to do with ancient belief as The Lord of the Rings does with Teutonic myth – inspired by, but hardly the spiritual successor to, the more ancient traditions. Secular Scots who live in the Outer Hebrides are closer to the Old Ways of my goddess-worshipping ancestors than any pagan or spiritualist here in America that I’ve ever met. As a girl who grew up in the 90s, I had a front-row seat to watch good friends get sucked into witchcraft, Wicca, Kryon-channeling spiritualism, Kabbalah, The Mists of Avalon and all the other BS out there. So I agree that it’s more than just LUG experimenation. It’s much broader, and yet much more shallow, than most people, including you, seem to think it is. However, it’s all about equally meaningless.

But what I was specifically talking about indigenous blended religion and Voodun, both of which are widespread and culturally significant forces in their own countries. Big differences between voodoo and American-style witchcraft.

[…] Courtesy of commenter “max from australia”, a juicy quote from a former Pope which accords with Chateau Heartiste analysis of the deleterious blowback from the availability of widespread, cheap contraceptives (of the sort never before experienced by humanity until relatively recently): Predictions from a wise Celibate bloke in a dress, Pope Paul VI, 1968 Humanae Vitae (Latin, “Human Life”) “Not much experience is needed in order to know human weakness, and to understand that men—especially the young, ….. growing used to the employment of anti-conceptive practices, may finally lose respect for the woman and, no longer caring for her physical and psychological equilibrium, may come to the point of considering her as a mere instrument of selfish enjoyment, and no longer as his respected and beloved companion” (HV 17). Pope Paul VI was close to the mark, but he forgot to mention the distaff side the equation; specifically, that as cheap contraceptives silently and subtly move men toward devaluing women, so too does the technology move women toward devaluing beta males, those bitter losers in the sexual market (note: I did not say marriage market or child market) for whom contraceptives, coupled with female economic self-sufficiency, have rendered them practically superfluous as primetime Source: Chateau Heartiste […]

About damn time you quoted Humanae Vitae… I’m sure that this post is not the first time you read it. Your whole blog has long been a synopsis of many of its points. For better or worse. I find myself staring into that same abyss from time to time. I find myself equally torn… I know it’s bad for me yet I do it anyway… why do I do the things I don’t want to do?

HV long ago prophesied the crushing blow to civilization as you have due to contraception. Yet… we barrel toward it like lemmings to the cliff.

Great stimulating and unique ideas and interconnections about the SMP, I now only fear a return to the early-junior-high ideas-I-got-from-my-redneck-dad level political “discussion”, with its wincingly moronic breakdown of culture into two–count ’em, two– variables.

This place really has something of the idiot-savante flavor, like Neil Young having one of the most sustained songwriting careers, but embarrassingly babbling on and on on Charlie Rose about a car that will never have to be refueled.Something he is fascinated with, but is simply beond his knowledge and expertise.

CH instigates it, but the hangers-on are ruthlessly stupid and vicious well past the point of tolerability.

“Everybody ready for those special, blinding insights? All together now: “NAHZEE! RAYCISS! YOU’RE JUST JEALOUS!”

What can I say, if the shoe fits wear it, ya fucking Nazi.

And constantly complaining about “insipid” comments or getting upset when you can’t refute FACTS, makes you as beta as they come. Strong men don’t complain about problems, they work around them, or they shut the fuck up. Therefore, you and your racist helpers complaining all the time, come across as castrated little eunuch.

I was reading a few older threads recently and all I know is that before you showed up, the racist and bigoted comments weren’t the norm here. Yes, there was the occasional fly-away racist or anti-Semitic comment, but it wasn’t so prevalent like after you showed up. All of a sudden the threads got laden with niger, niga, monkey, yiddler, schlomo, Shabbos- goy bullshit, not to mention your constant fights and nasty one-liner comments that don’t have anything substantial to add to the conversation. Talk about insipid. Projecting much?

Bottom line, you’re nothing but a fucking racist neo-Nazi evil man using the Chateau to spread your racist hateful cheer around. Then anyone who disagrees with your hate or your brand of “Biblical interpretation,” you complain about like the little useless delusional Jealous Nazi you are, waiting for the GREAT “fray.” Guess what? The first person to go in your famous fray will be you, Nazi. Remember Hitler? His fate = your fate.

I’ve been reading the Chateau for a couple years now and the comments section was MUCH better before you started menstruating all over it. You have nothing to offer but shaming language and hysterics. Nobody likes you.

Lanconshit, women wanting to fit in might be all heartbroken some Nazi loser tells her, “nobody likes you.” Me, it doesn’t affect one bit. If anything, all your crying and pouting only livens it up for me. You’re only proving my point, ONCE AGAIN. Now STFU, NAZI.

“I was reading a few older threads recently and all I know is that before you showed up, the racist and bigoted comments weren’t the norm here.”

This. A few months back this comment section was worth reading. I’ve considered not posting anymore in general because I just don’t care to keep sifting thru the same garbage even in articles that have nothing to do with race.

When every article about race/politics/religion ends up with 200 comments arguing about “Niggers ‘n Jews”, and every article about Game ends up with 200 comments arguing about “Niggers ‘n Jews”, it’s hard to really call this a Game blog anymore, and helping men learn Game was the only reason I started posting.

That’s a damn shame but I share your angst. Realize though that you do have a solid group of dudes that appreciate your comments and are actively trying to improve. It seems like it’s guys in their mid-20s and that can take the game-centered knowledge to use it to it’s maximum advantage.

If you think that we’d benefit from reading elsewhere just let us know the location. I’ve got the MM Collabo, Mystery Method, Paul Janka’s pdf, The Tyler Digest, Roosh’s Bang, etc so I think I’m set for life with the text based stuff.

While my office was flooded out and I had off work for a few days, I did make a composition PDF of ALL your comments here & @ at Rational Male which I feel like you are owed a copy considering all your contributions to us trying to move up. If you want that let me know and I’ll post the link.

PDF sounds awesome lol, feel free to post the link. I tried starting a wordpress account a while back because I was hoping there was a way to easily/automatically get it to post the threads/comments I participate in to the blog so people who want to read my shit could just easily find it all in one spot but couldn’t find a way to do that and I do a lot of my posts from my phone while I’m taking a dump etc. so cutting and pasting threads manually is just too much of a time sink for me.

Wish there was a solution to this, some kind of “duplicate this thread to my blog” option when a wordpress account is posting on a wordpress blog.

I like posting here and at Rational because I don’t really care about coming up with ideas for articles, I just like delving into concepts CH/Rollo bring up. But when you can’t have a single Game article not get derailed with a dozen race-bait flame wars it’s like are there even any gamers reading the site anymore?

I don’t post for the guys arguing about jews and lib-tards because I know those guys are never going to do anything significant with their lives, that’s why I don’t participate in those waste of time exchanges. I post my shit for the guys lurking here looking to better their lives through learning Game and understanding sexual/social dynamics because there’s still hope for them to turn their life around the way I did and do something good either for themselves or for others once their life no longer feels depressing, frustrating, and hopeless.

I don’t post for the guys arguing about jews and lib-tards because I know those guys are never going to do anything significant with their lives,

You know, kid… it’s okay you don’t want to get into the politics and religion frays… they’re not for the weak of mind, when they get beyond the usual suspect useful idiot fem hysterics.

But this ego-balm of yours in the imagined “I’m doing something/they’ve done nothing” folderol is weak-sister shit.

Men with long-term marriages, multiple children, entire families educated at the graduate level, lifelong careers at demanding professions, amidst other varied interests and deeds, the surface of which having not even been scratched yet here at the chateau, far trumps your ability to bang a few alleged hotties of indeterminate virtue… even when they allow you to use them as your personal toilet.

Nor does your “help” to others who couldn’t get laid in high school with what amounts to mere common sense in dealing with the MTV generation of women constitute any achievement worthy of the tiresome self-congratulatory bloviating in which you over-indulge, like some fat kid given free reign in a Maggie Moos.

So keep doing your thing, if that’s all you aspire to… but can the stupid snark about how nobody else who doesn’t see Babylon through your shit-coloured glasses has done anything with their lives.

“I like posting here and at Rational because I don’t really care about coming up with ideas for articles, I just like delving into concepts CH/Rollo bring up. But when you can’t have a single Game article not get derailed with a dozen race-bait flame wars it’s like are there even any gamers reading the site anymore?”

What about an “Ask YaReally” blog where people submit their game-related questions and you make posts answering those? If you think it’d be too much hassle moderating comments and stuff, I’d be happy to take care of that.

“I was reading a few older threads recently and all I know is that before you showed up, the racist and bigoted comments weren’t the norm here.”

I seem to be getting a lot of credit, and from more than one reliable source (loozozozoozlllllooozozozlll), for the un-PC boldness of the chateau.

If my initial courage to speak out has inspired others to voice their heretofore hidden feelings, then I pat myself on the back.

But credit where due… we all know that Generalissmo H deserves the lion’s share of lion-heartedness.

True, a few here are a bit brutish with the epithets, and I’ve often voiced my own reservations about such… only indulging in them myself as, for example, a humorous response to those who start in said epithets themselves.

But there have been many, many more who have chimed in with reasoned responses and necessary fire to the heretofore unchallenged PC, shabbos goyism and antiwhite bullshit that pollutes the internet in general, and which finds it way all-too-often to this very chateau… the usual haven for men who admire harsh truth over pretty lies.

And this is what truly puts the panties of the opposition in a twist… if it were merely a few “Nigger!” or “Kike!” rantings, the cognitive dissonance and female hysteria we see arise wouldn’t bother to show their ruffled feathers.

He often backpedals unchallenged. Don’t let him twist the argument, or misrepresent the truth in one of his misleading fallacies. You had him pegged.

In every hateful comment he either says outright, or he implies, that he’s better than someone because he was born a different race, or he’s not Jewish, or he’s white. Often he minimizes their achievements and contributions, or he refuses to give credit where credit is due, or he uses scriptures to justify hate with bullshit non-argument fallacies, or he blames them and their ilk (only) while he overlooks his precious Aryan race doing the same thing, or he calls them names like niggs and yiddlers and shabos goys nonsense. Every one of his political, religious, or social commentary posts are laden with racism and hate, and the ones that aren’t, sound like the mumblings of a teenager looking to fit in with his friends. Hence, you’ll find the one-liner stupidities, or the usual “+100” at the bottom of many a comment at the Chateau. That’s a deep thinker for you, whom you have something to learn from??? What a joke!

“If my initial courage to speak out has inspired others to voice their heretofore hidden feelings, then I pat myself on the back.”

Speaking out? You call your brand of hate speaking out? It’s more like the inciting of the masses, much like your beloved Fuehrer used to do.

Criticizing Jews or Blacks for their liberal leanings is one thing, but spreading sheer hate, lies, and retarded conspiracy theories devised by demented white-supremacists like yourself, is completely another thing and doesn’t belong here. If you are so “traumatized” by the Jews, why don’t you move to a place like Coeur d’Alene, ID, where I hear many Neo-Nazis live? I’m sure you’d find many kindred spirits there, and you can fly your Nazi flag and hang your Hitler portraits unhindered and unimpeded. Maybe you’ll get all that hate out of your system once you can act out in the open.

Better yet, maybe move to Germany and help the “master race”? Oh, I forgot, over there you can’t even fly the swastika flag and hang piccees of the beloved Fuehrer. How perplexing, as well as ironic? Only in America can a Nazi creep like you indulge in Nazi speak and paraphernalia, eh? The very place you and your ilk want to turn into a hate inferno.

“True, a few here are a bit brutish with the epithets, and I’ve often voiced my own reservations about such… only indulging in them myself as, for example, a humorous response to those who start in said epithets themselves.”

NO GO. You’re complicit and culpable, and now all of a sudden you start misrepresenting again. Some of your comments border on serious Nazi propaganda rivaling that of Joseph Goebbels, and if it weren’t for me putting you on notice a few months ago you’d be spreading it like white on rice and feeding it to the easily incitable. You toned it down a lot, and yet it’s still disgusting and brings down the quality of the conversation.

“But there have been many, many more who have chimed in with reasoned responses and necessary fire to the heretofore unchallenged PC, shabbos goyism and antiwhite bullshit that pollutes the internet in general, and which finds it way all-too-often to this very chateau…”

What? I don’t see anyone here talking against the white race in a serious manner as you do against other races and religions. There is the usual liberal posters bashing conservative ideas, but all you do is accuse them of being Jewish, which in turn means all you care about is substituting Jews for Liberals because your hate has no basis in reality, and stems from irrational demented beliefs.

Don’t you remember? Our fights started because I commented in a manner which someone didn’t like (as I am a conservative, not a white-Supremacist) and you rushed to their aid spewing Nazi nonsense about protecting the white race from yiddlers and shabos goys or whatever racist Nazi nonsense you were spewing at the time. You are hardly an innocent bystander who gets swept into fights as you portrayed yourself above. You instigate em’. So stop misleading.

LOL! And you using “cognitive dissonance” in every comment is laughable. I don’t think you truly understand the meaning of that term, or you can’t see it in yourself, because you’re full of ironies and hypocrisies. People are often blind to their own shortcomings, but like to point the finger and project it on others.

But there have been many, many more who have chimed in with reasoned responses and necessary fire to the heretofore unchallenged PC, shabbos goyism and antiwhite bullshit that pollutes the internet in general, and which finds it way all-too-often to this very chateau… the usual haven for men who admire harsh truth over pretty lies.

And this is what truly puts the panties of the opposition in a twist… if it were merely a few “Nigger!” or “Kike!” rantings, the cognitive dissonance and female hysteria we see arise wouldn’t bother to show their ruffled feathers.

I don’t particularly care for your ongoing drama with Greg. Although it amuses me and I think you’re a cunt.

But don’t you dare criticize the way men communicate between them. The +1s and +1000s are vital expressions between men. Your cunt criticism is how political correctness starts to turn public debate into shit.

Tell you what, ho, one of my favorite memes on any male forum are +1s and +100s.
Now fuck off!

Don’t know if it is a purpose but make the world a better place would be it.

and white men have done that.

From anti-biotics to air conditioning and computers white men have made the world a much better place

well of course now that the left is in control and that Western civilization is in decay we are reversing this trend.

We have lost our sense of direction but it is because we have let feminists, gays, and non white take over and none of them have a history of advancing civilization

about Islam,

I am not a religious man at all and could never be but Islam has some moderate appeal to me because it puts man in charge where he should be.

Muslim women – to an extent – are better protected from themselves and are better guided than our liberated women in the west who now that they are free to chose between becoming an engineer or a sex object, chose to be sex objects who are so promiscuous they seem to think it is a cure for STDs!

DISCLAIMER: This is not organized like MM Collaboration. I seriously just sat at my comp for a couple days and did a Ctrl+F search for YaReally on RM & CH.

With that said, it is damn useful and I found a lot of value from it. It’s long as hell but my understanding, knowledge, mentality went from 0-60 just from reading each comment that I pasted into the document. I’ll post the link over on CH’s recent post so more people can grab it.

At your next session, ask your mentor at what point in your manliness training do you reach the lesson on dignity? This is the online equivalent of shaving another man’s balls and pressing the pubes into a scrapbook.

Honor and praise the virtue in your midst. But don’t become Kathy Bates in Misery.

We had our differences, but thank you for not letting it stop you from telling the truth and caring enough for the blog to try to stop the irrelevant racist/bigoted stuff being spewed here. It truly has nothing to do with the subject at hand. But, by the looks of it, someone is not getting the hint.

This particular thread’s craziness began when you went all RAYCISS freaky on my simple comment about not dismissing the wisdom of so-called “out of touch” old (or dead) white men… such as the Pope… which is what this thread is all about, aka “the subject at hand”.

Yep, continue twisting the exact implications and meaning of your ramblings. Basically, again you have no argument so you have to resort to mumbo-jumbo fallacious-misrepresentational rants.

This is what you said:

“Everybody ready for those special, blinding insights? All together now: “NAHZEE! RAYCISS! YOU’RE JUST JEALOUS!”

No one said anything of the sort, until you took it upon yourself to instigate by implying that anyone “fighting” those that post against the Pope will be dismissed as “NAHZEE! RAYCISS! YOU’RE JUST JEALOUS!” People said their peace in favor of the pope or against him to some degree or another, but no one said anything racist, anti-racist, or anti-catholic until you got the ball rolling. Criticizing is not race bating. Your form of comments are purely racial for the hell of starting hateful fights.

See, not so innocent, are you? Yet, you like to act like the innocent victim, eh? Weasel is a weasel is a weasel. And no honor among weasels, you know. STFU already. You have sprinkled the whole thread with your useless comments. Has there been any comment you didn’t reply to? I think it’s time for you to take a much-needed break buddy.

There is a BIG difference between then and now. Criticizing Blacks and Jews for being liberal is fair game. As you know 98% of blacks and 69% of Jews voted for Obama, that’s what we were discussing. But it’s a whole different situation calling Jews the Synagogue of Satan, Christ killers, wielding too much undue influence, or repeating the supposed demented fake Jewish conspiracy theory of Jews controlling the world and the US, or constantly referring to blacks as niggs.

Either we can have an honest discussion about the Left and all its tentacles, or it’s just a fraudulent discussion meant to inspire baseless unrestraint hate and resentment of other people, as well as a feelings of hopelessness, which also breeds rage, all under the guise of being anti-left, when it’s really anti-Jewish. If we constantly substitute Jews for Liberals and Leftists, then we are not going to be effective in this fight. Then all we are doing is getting outraged by the Jews and increasing our resentment of them, instead of looking at the whole liberal movement, which includes many White gentiles, and finding ways to counteract it.

During Hitler’s time, Germany had many problems. But instead of solving the real issues plaguing Germany, he transferred his energies to killing the Jews and starting a World War, which killed tens-of- millions of people in its wake and didn’t solve a thing. We have to be careful of thing like this happening in this country. If it does, we lose. All it takes is one mad man, as you know.

Do you see the difference?

Criticizing is one thing. Pure hateful comments is another. Eliot’s initial comments rival Joseph Goebbels’ propaganda. Despite what Eliot will have you believe, this didn’t start today. This is a very long war between us. Although, he has toned it down a bit.

Lils, you need to stop alienating your allies over minutiae. The fight is bigger than your comparatively minuscule differences, and you get no brownie points for being chief squealer of the PC patrol here.

So what if you have differences in the foxhole? Let’s win the war first, then you can hash it out.

This is why the left always rolls us. They keep their “eyes on the prize” and leave the internecine bloodletting for after they gain power. We squabble constantly (and publicly!) over violations of pristine principle and make the perfect the enemy of the good.

This is also why a woman should not ever be put on watch duty. She’ll kill in his sleep the comrade who made a face at her eleven weeks ago.

“Everybody ready for those special, blinding insights? All together now: “NAHZEE! RAYCISS! YOU’RE JUST JEALOUS!”

Ahem… sorry, girlie, that was your SECOND outburst of this thread. All with eyes to see can check above and see the truth.

And for the record, that remark of mine you quote was in response to another poster’s snark about “libtards, kill!” and had nothing to do with you nor any of my alleged racist remarks. Merely saying that the opposite side of the “kill libtards” fence busies themselves with shaming language such as the usual litany given above is not, in and of itself, a racist remark.

That this has to be explained just amazes me… and truth be told, I should have my head examined for even bothering to engage your idiocy.

Criticizing is one thing. Pure hateful comments is another. Eliot’s initial comments rival Joseph Goebbels’ propaganda. Despite what Eliot will have you believe, this didn’t start today. This is a very long war between us. Although, he has toned it down a bit.

LLLOLLLZZLZLZOOOOOLLZLZLLZLZL

You call this ‘war’? You posting harpy bizarre slander and female hysteria bullshit upon which you get pwned, and which I countermand for the sake of strangers who may get the wrong impression?

This is not war, Tank Grrrllll… this is a long-suffering man slapping down flies when they buzz too close.

Which came first, my comment, or yours? It has the timing on there, go look genius. You said it almost an hour before, and not only that, you already started complaining the day before when the thread came out. So if I were you, I’d shut up.

You really are dense, aren’t you? Notice I’m not saying you’re a liar, because I’m just going to prove you wrong, and I’m sure in this weird universe inside your head, you actually believe you’re correct.

1) Your first outburst to me on this thread, going in descending order from the top (1:06pm), was to my remark about not dismissing the wisdom of old (or dead) white men… which was a +1 response to JS’s remark “People scoffed and said he was out of touch; what would an old, white, celibate priest know about marriage and sex?”

Totally weird, so much so that two other posters had to shake their heads at you.

2) Your second outburst to me (1:17pm) was the one where I was responding to siberianjourney’s snark about “libtard, kill”. This is the one you’re trying to say was first.

There…. now don’t you feel stupid? Probably not… you’re the kind of person that people refer to when they say “You can’t insult her”… namely, because of severe dimness and shortness of attention span.

3) As you will have noticed, the honorable GBFM has introduced several memes to the chateau… one of them being LLOOZOZOZZOOZOZLLLLLOOZOOZLLL and variations thereof, which signify the well-worn internet meme lol (which you yourself use). The beauty of GBFM’s variation is that it conveys a much, much, MUCH more ribald sense of maniacal laughter at the given target.

The, “Everybody ready for those special, blinding insights? All together now: “NAHZEE! RAYCISS! YOU’RE JUST JEALOUS!” was made at 12:12. My comments came an hour later.

Your second comment, the one with +1, which I commented to you first, came at 12:21.

The thread was very short then, about 50 comments or so. It took me about 10 minutes to scheme through the WHOLE thing before commenting in these two places, inspired by your “NAHZEE! RAYCISS! YOU’RE JUST JEALOUS!”” comment. I wasn’t even going to post in this thread if it weren’t for your baseless complaints. What’s so hard to understand?

You instigated it again, as you always do and that is the point I was trying to make: “I was reading a few older threads recently and all I know is that before you showed up, the racist and bigoted comments weren’t the norm here….”

But as I said, you already expressed these same sentiments the day before, so reading all of your collective bullshit about misrepresenting how people who disagree with any type of criticism call people like you “NAHZEE! RAYCISS! YOU’RE JUST JEALOUS!” prompted me to reply to your bullshit. It’s simply not true. As I said, legitimate criticism is one thing, but your brand of hateful propaganda is a whole different type of animal. That’s why you are being called a jealous racist. Get it? Let’s hope you do.

Sorry, but the nastiness he spews is way beyond the pale for decent people to take. There is a big difference between legitimate criticism of a group of people, and just spewing incitement like they did in Nazi Germany, or like they do in Arab countries driving people to the streets freaking out, high on hate and rage to the point they see some poor helpless woman and take out all their anger on her, ripping her to shreds. That’s the power of the tongue, as you know.

Humans have the power of speech and with it we can build and destroy worlds, with words lone. Look at the Left how successful it has been with its propaganda, simply because it has figured out how to manipulate the language and make evil polices that destroy the country sound innocuous.

The Left love using comments made by people like Greg to seize control of the argument and twist the truth in their favor. They use racists like him as substitute for conservatives, much like he does Jews for liberals. It’s the same shit, different day. Propaganda 101.

Many Jews who aren’t particularly happy with Obama told me they fear the conservatives because they think conservatives are anti-Semitic. That’s the perception they have, despite many Christian-conservative support for Israel and despite having Judeo-Christian values in common with Christian-conservative (if not the same religious theology). I think many whites have the same perception about conservatives. Therefore, there are effective ways to fight the Left without stooping to Nazi-era type propaganda, or middle-ages type of anti-Semitic hate. We need to stick to the issues and the truth, not waste time on shit like this.

Believe me, the truth doesn’t need to be laced with hate speech to be popular with conservative, or with people that truly love the country and searching for solutions. You can’t argue in the face of the truth because it is the truth. It has its own intrinsic power, and somehow it always comes out. I don’t see any point to all the racist comments here. Why not focus on male-female relations, or social commentary on the Left and all its tentacles or deceptive tactics that are very often connected to male-female relations? Let’s keep it on target.

“This is also why a woman should not ever be put on watch duty.”

For a long time I didn’t say anything about his bullshit, but when he started to attack me in his usual thread-patrol self-appointed chief-of-propaganda watchmen, I let him have it. Since no body was saying anything, yes, I said something. Leave it to a 5’4” 106 lbs woman to do the job of men. Some of you should have said something a long time ago, unless you all agree with him and like his Nazi-spewing rants and think they make a winning argument in getting back the country.

Aw, geez… I’m going by your responses based on the order in which you started your inane attacks to my comments on this thread… comments which were neither racist nor off-topic.

Both your first and second attack followed posts where I was responding to another poster altogether, and which had nothing to do with you or racism, nor where they off-topic, as you claimed to YaReally in attempting to rationalize your errant screeds.

The times at which I myself made those posts are immaterial, because as I said when THIS WHOLE STUPID SUBTHREAD STARTED WITH YOUR SHIT, your attacks were what began the craziness.

Matthew King (King A)
Lils, you need to stop alienating your allies over minutiae. The fight is bigger than your comparatively minuscule differences, and you get no brownie points for being chief squealer of the PC patrol here.
————————

This is interesting. Is everybody paying attention?

The problem with whitelily is she is practicing racism like a white female. White females are more sophisticated in the way they do it because they “hedge”. They don’t wanna run around shouting nigger! kike!… because if niggers or kikes win, white women wanna line up and be “first lady” of what ever the new order is.

This is how women are.

They don’t care about principle, honor, integrity…

They gravitate to the power, no matter where it is.

Theres a thousand white women out there who would fuck Louis Farakhan just because he is the most white hating nigger they know and they want to PROVE their pussy is good enough to overcome even a giant abominable nigger like him.

To sum up, what Nitelily is saying is: Im not a racist because If the right nigger came along, I would marry him.

You guys should not be mad at her because after all, this is exactly why men are BETTER than women.

Liliana, sweetheart, I admire your passion. It reminds me of my dear mother, whose fierce loyalty translates to politics well beyond prudence or calculation. I swear, if it were up to women, every public policy triumph would be followed by a pitiless Roman purge of the dissenters. Politics as bulimia. Women are capable of the direst cruelties, far more than men.

The problem with your jeremiad is you are playing the left’s game on the left’s terms:

… the nastiness he spews is way beyond the pale for decent people to take. … just spewing incitement like they did in Nazi Germany … high on hate and rage … laced with hate speech …

First rule of war. Choose the battlefield upon which to engage the enemy. You have chosen the turf where the left has insuperable advantages, right down to using their own terminology. “Nastiness” (never use this word again, it has no meaning beyond what fat snotfaced cunts momentarily disapprove of), “laced with hate speech,” “decen[cy],” “hate” (rather than “hatred”), and reductio ad Hitlerum.

Look at the Left how successful it has been with its propaganda, simply because it has figured out how to manipulate the language and make evil polices that destroy the country sound innocuous.

Indeed, look at them. And forget about ever emulating them. The left is perfectly content-free. It is “the ends justify the means” raised to a political and religious ideal. We cannot adopt their tactics without becoming leftist ourselves. In the process we would abandon the principle which defines us. If you really believe the truth will out (“It has its own intrinsic power, and somehow it always comes out”), then stop believing that lies directed toward righteous ends will avail us.

This means we do not, under any circumstances, police each others’ speech. We present the counterclaim for deliberation. We do not demonize even those who demonize. We by example demonstrate the principled alternative: enforce the law of civilized rhetoric and trust in the marketplace of ideas among rational men. Contrary to modern prejudice, “civilized rhetoric” is not the absence of “hate speech,” where we locate words and thoughts that offend and then ridicule or prohibit them. Civilized rhetoric is the earnest attempt to understand your loyal opponent’s argument, and only then presenting the counterclaim.

The Left love using comments made by people like Greg to seize control of the argument and twist the truth in their favor. They use racists like him as substitute for conservatives, much like he does Jews for liberals.

Here you have a point, but you simultaneously commit a subtle capitulation to the left’s half-baked understanding of justice. Keep focused on the enemy. When they “seize control of the argument and twist the truth in their favor,” keep your aim trained on them, rather than turning it on your allies, as is our enemy’s fondest desire! The reason why their demonization is effective is because people like you dream that if we purge our confreres of “extremism” as defined by the enemy, they will 1) treat us more fairly, and 2) not come after us next. By lopping off the more outré members of our confraternity, that just makes you into the extremists for the next chopping block — thanks to your unconscious acceptance of their definition of “extremism.”

Since no body was saying anything, yes, I said something. Leave it to a 5’4” 106 lbs woman to do the job of men. Some of you should have said something a long time ago, unless you all agree with him and like his Nazi-spewing rants.

Ahh, at last we get down to it.

I appreciate this exchange precisely because it highlights just how a “woman … do[es] the job of men.” You are, after Yeats, “full of passionate intensity,” and yet you are not “the worst.” You are merely ill-fitted to combat gear. While female berserker moxie may “imitate the action of the tiger / Stiffen the sinews, summon up the blood [and] / Disguise fair nature with hard-favour’d rage,” your efforts are more wasted heat than clarifying light. Women are cute when they are angry, not intimidating.

I understand your frustration with the beta males who populate your purview in greater numbers than any righteous woman should have to put up with. But we are not they.

The very best and most feminine service you provide is the attempt to challenge our manhood. Women are very good at that, you are built to do that. Indeed in your typo you accidentally revealed a powerful truth “no body was saying anything.” Use that five-four and buck-oh-six to its proper advantage, put those perky tits and ass in the combat gear for which you are better suited: a modest but not frumpy dress that men will kill to unwrap like a present.

Leave to men and God the difficult job of the winnowing fork. It takes a fraternal subtlety that, frankly, women are too artless to accompllish. We win by establishing a bond of brotherhood despite fundamental (and often fatal) differences.

In that sense, you are absolutely correct. Men have dropped the ball, and it is well within the tradition of feminine power to call us out on our shortcomings. We require leadership to elide the rough edges of our discontentment and difference, and as much as I appreciate your attempt to play Joan of Arc, that leadership will have to come from men.

But think of it this way, in case you are further tempted toward feminist resentment: you get to fuck that leader and have his babies, the princes who will one day fuck the world back to obedience, submission, liberty, and grace. Your sons, to which you are well within your feminine right to say, “Come back with your shield — or upon it.”

“Theres a thousand white women out there who would fuck Louis Farakhan just because he is the most white hating nigger they know and they want to PROVE their pussy is good enough to overcome even a giant abominable nigger like him.”

Not me.

“To sum up, what Nitelily is saying is: Im not a racist because If the right nigger came along, I would marry him.”

And not me.

However, if you think that refusing to mate with Black men makes me a racist, try again. I just like sticking to my own kind. Shared values and similar background helps relationships in the face of all the modern struggles of making them work. So why add more difficulties?

In addition, I’m not attracted to Black men, I don’t get Black culture, nor do I respect it. It’s been nothing but a failure. But I am not willing to preach hate based solely on skin color. If we teach more conservative values in general (as opposed to hate values) some of it will spill over to the Black community. Problem is, we let the liberals take over education and we know what a train wreck that has been.

But I do respect Blacks that don’t follow the mindless follies of their Black brethren’s futility and stupidity. Blacks that didn’t vote for Obama get my respect. Do you know how hard it is to be able to evaluate things independently from what all your peers think? It takes courage, conviction, endurance to stick it out when all your family, friends, and neighbors tell you you’re an uncle tom traitor etc…

For instance, Thomas Sowell has more brain in his little pinky than most whites. Sorry, I can’t overlook him because he’s Black.

Anyway, thwack, what kind of shit observations are you making these days? Me bedding blacks? I thought you were deeper than that?

OK, I wasn’t going to post much today because I have lots of work and I need to get it done; not get into fights with people on the internet, although it was fun. But I see I need to reply to a few posts.

Is there a reason why you are purposely calling me everything but Lily? Lils, Liliana??? LOL! It doesn’t bother me either way what you call me, but it’s very peculiar. Just wanted you to Know, I noticed peculiar habits.

“This means we do not, under any circumstances, police each others’ speech. We present the counterclaim for deliberation. We do not demonize even those who demonize. “

First, I think you misunderstand what I am getting at. I am not policing speech. I hate censorship. What I am saying is that Eliot’s brand of speech is not helpful to the total picture. It’s dangerous and shouldn’t be accepted (not stopped, but we shouldn’t accept it) as a serious way to get rid of the left and bring us back to old-fashioned conservative values. Furthermore, he was the one who started policing my speech when he and Anon didn’t like my brand of conservatism. I was talking about protecting America from terrorist forces, and they both jumped on me and called me a war monger, as according to them spewing hate against the Jews is a better option of protecting America than fighting terrorists if they dare try to commit any new attacks against this country. See how demented they are? That’s who I call weak men, and that’s what I meant when I said.” Leave it to a 5’4” 106 lbs woman to do the job of men.”

But I digress. There is a BIG difference between being conservatives who understand how magnificent and brilliant America is and White culture in general, and just being White-supremacists. I find most white-supremacists very ignorant, uneducated, and yeah hateful. And definitely not helpful, but a hindrance.

Second, I am definitely not using Leftists tactics here by speaking out. I am COMPARING between leftists tactics and what I have observed is taking place on this blog. It’s very similar. What I am saying is, just like the left likes to substitute racists for conservatives, some on our side like to substitute Jewish for Leftist.

When the Left does it, they try to gain political capital and make people scared of conservatives by making them feel they could never relate to conservatives because they are hateful racists. See the game they play?

When people on our side substitute Jews for liberals they are playing similar propaganda.

1) They have a much-built frustration, resentment, and hate against Jews, mostly because they think Jews are successfully financially and professionally, and they feel a jealous resentment towards them. Therefore, they start looking for religious anti-Semitic reasons to justify their hate.

2) They needs a scape goat, where they turn all their anger against , and who better than the usual scape goat of history? It’s easy to pick on Jews and look for reasons to blame them in order to make Non-Jews whites feel good about themselves and united against a common enemy, instead of looking for the reasons why things are not working out. How do you think Hitler manage to turn the German people into such vicious killers? By this exact tactic.

How is substituting Jews for liberals helpful to the fight against liberalism and leftism? All it does is serve to increase hate of Jews. But it won’t solve anything. It’s exactly what Hitler did. Germany had many problems when he came to power, but instead of solving Germany’s problems he turned his focus on the Jews, as well as started a world war. Did he solve anything for Germany? NO. He wasn’t smart at all. He was just a madman. Words have power, all it takes is one madman to incite the masses and it will spiral from there, as happened in Germany then and is happening in the Arab world now.

Same thing here. Hating the Jews, ain’t going to get us closer to our goal of turning the country back to a Centre-right country. It’s just a way to give angry frustrated men someone to blame, and in the process for the left to see this and use it against us to say we are racists, don’t vote for conservatives.

I don’t understand why most of you refuse to take a lesson from history. Only fools ignore history. The kinds of comments which Eliot expresses are not new, or regular hate speech . He keeps hurling old anti-Semitic insults Christians used to spew against the Jews in the middle ages, when Jews weren’t “corrupting” anything. They weren’t in Hollywood or the media at the time. But they were an easy scapegoats for the release of the frustrations of people. He also repeats demented conspiracy theories against the Jews originated with the Nazis, all in an effort to find a common scape goat that he and other losers like him can blame for their lack of effectiveness.

‘keep your aim trained on them, rather than turning it on your allies”

I don’t see someone like Greg and his ilk as my allies. I think men like him are dangerous and could bring the downfall of the country, much like the left can on the other side. People like him have no solutions, just demented rhetoric to makes the masses have someone to take their aggression and frustrations against. I call a spade a spade.

Lillehammer, you are relitigating the same point, but I am speaking of something different altogether. Trust that we understand your position. Trust that I respect it, and even share it, in large part.

Women are all about purging. Purge the betas in their midst, purge the female competition, purge the undesirable omegas (sneer face), purge all the bad things from life.

Men are more practical. My argument is practical. We are a severe minority. We cannot alienate people who have a 95-5% agreement rate. We simply cannot afford it. I have my differences with every single ally I have. Some of them far more profound than the significance of The Kike. And yet we act in concert toward the goals we share for as many different reasons as there are individuals contributing to the cause.

Men realize that they must compromise in life. They find what principles they have in common with other men and emphasize those, touching on the disagreements only when necessity demands — which is very, very rare. This is why men can be friends in the Aristotelian sense: lovers not of each other but of interests they mutually share.

Friendship is foreign territory for a woman, which is why you are an unreliable champion of the principles we both hold. You focus on peculiarities, on the trees rather than the forest. You allow the pea in the mattress to keep you up all night, you pick at the smallest scab until you turn yourself gangrenous. But don’t ever change, sister. I mean that. Just stop injecting yourself between men.

Trust me when I say Greg Eliot is not nearly as fixated on your differences as you are. He will not purge you over a deeply-held principle because commitment to the brotherhood per se overrides all differences. He will laugh, shrug off the conflict, and welcome you back into the fold. As he will not purge you, stop attempting to purge him.

I do not expect you to know this already because for women, the main goal in life is locating the One. All others be damned. Don’t try to change this about yourself, you will end up a mutilation. At the same time, stop playing soldier with combat boots five sizes too big.

Along with Nietzsche, I am a philosemite. The world has been trying to eradicate them for eons, usually directly! But they are still around. Unlike shiftless cultures who lionize NBA stars and ooking wannabe thugs, they emphasize education, improvement, self-protection, and power. As a Christian, they are my “elder brothers,” the first chosen people just as we on the Bark of Peter are the final chosen people.

Can Greg, uh, and I have a knockdown-drag-out argument about this? Yes. Indeed, the more we talk about it, the greater the chance of depleting our resources on a pointless internecine war. Same goes for CH’s inane atheism and soul-sapping hedonism.

But there are more pressing matters, toots. Matters in which there is not a single blonde cunt-hair of space between my brothers and me. So the only question for you remains: does the carpet match the drapes?

Ha Ha ……. You never stop to amaze, which is why I hate you in part and love you in another.

I am speaking to you about the dangers we face, and you are speaking about your fraternity with your male friends and telling me not to come in the middle? LOL! Brotherliness? Really, that’s important? And you are insisting the female has a rationalization hamster? Are you sure men don’t have a rationalization hamster as well?

That said, thanks for the link you provided. It was a riveting read. I had a chance to read only your amazing comments, but I will read the entire thread from top to bottom when I get a chance; it’s really interesting. BTW, Uh and J.M. are total pagans, not just simple atheists. There is a difference in the quality of beliefs. The former is a bit inaner then the latter. Alas, they are both stupid.

Other than that, thanks for all your sexist insults. What’s a good retort to a girl without sprinkling a few cunts here and there? Of course, I jest.

Oh, BTW, did you notice what heartiste said there?

“[Heartiste: Remaining faithful does not automatically mean a man is beta. Faithful men who *could* get a lot of pussy but voluntarily choose not to are alpha.]”

I have said it myself: A true Alpha is a man that can control himself for the sake of his relationship, as opposed to the cad who chases countless of hos without reason nor purpose. Show me a man that can control his urges and I will show you true power. But I digress.

I am speaking to you about the dangers we face, and you are speaking about your fraternity with your male friends and telling me not to come in the middle? LOL! Brotherliness?

Precisely. This is what you cannot fathom and can only respond with a “LOL”: brotherhood is the only way out of this mess.

But I don’t fault you for your snickering, nor would I ask you to mutate your nature and change just to understand these manly things. Your female uncomprehension has been factored into my equations.

No longer do I call you servants, for the servant does not know what his master is doing; but I have called you friends…

We are the communio, the living stones of the church, members of the body of Christ. The enemy is also known as the “scatterer.” The divider. We win united or we win not at all.

The most potent example of this in my lifetime was Bingham, Burnett, Beamer, and Glick on Flight 93. They did not know each other in the slightest, and in the space of an hour, they rallied to each other, sacrificed side-by-side, and accomplished a saintly task together. They are the models of my life.

The potential for brotherhood is dormant in all men, waiting for the acute emergency to bring it to the fore. The only way the subverters of our age can win is if they lull us all into a soft feminist slumber.

It’s not a frat house. It’s your salvation.

But there is a limit to discourse with women. Because of the restrictions of this medium, I have no choice but to drive the point home with mere words rather than slapping or fucking the sense into you. Alas, you will have to consult your imagination to fill in the blanks of that “teaching moment.” I hope you at least have some experience with such a dynamic for you to refer to. Because at this point we are running out of things to say.

Really? How about controlling education and wresting it away from the left? How about teaching old-fashion values, like marriage and children, and how about bringing back men to their rightful place of leadership in our society?

“The most potent example of this in my lifetime was Bingham, Burnett, Beamer, and Glick on Flight 93. They did not know each other in the slightest, and in the space of an hour, they rallied to each other, sacrificed side-by-side, and accomplished a saintly task together. They are the models of my life.”

OK, fair enough, but they did it out of necessity, not of some fabled fraternity of white men. They didn’t really need to know each other personally to grasp their bleak situation. They were in the same boat together, and that made them natural allies, united in “a saintly task together.” Do you think that if one of them was Black or Jewish he wouldn’t have help his natural allies against the terrorists because white men have no fraternity with Jews or black men during crisis? Therefore this analogy is slightly irrelevant, even though I love you premise that they are ‘the models of your life.’

That said, related to your point, I believe that because of feminism, and worse, because of the feminization of the American male, and of the Western male for that matter, Islamic hordes sense our weakness and our confusion and transplant themselves on our shores looking for eternal life in paradise with 72 virgins each, no less, either by way of lifting the sword against the infidel or via a silent jihad waged against him thru marriage and conversion of lost Christian souls looking for purpose and guidance and find it in Islam and its fake promises. Men are no longer men. They have either turned into selfish cads, unrefined rakes, or feminized betas. That’s why we are losing the war. Education is left in the hands of weak men and feminist bitches, and they are conducting a war on masculinity, male leadership and risk taking, while replacing it with the mommy state that seeks to control us from the cradle to the grave. That’s why we don’t need men, according to feminists, do you see that? The mommy state took his place. They are attempting to make him obsolete, and that should be worrying you more than your imaginary fraternity with men spewing irrational hate and crazy conspiracies that help the feminists’ supposed case of men being EVIL.

“But there is a limit to discourse with women. Because of the restrictions of this medium, I have no choice but to drive the point home with mere words rather than slapping or fucking the sense into you.“

So this is what happens in the end, eh? In RL you would have just slapped me and fucked me into submission? A woman who disagrees is rebellious???

“Alas, you will have to consult your imagination to fill in the blanks of that “teaching moment.” I hope you at least have some experience with such a dynamic for you to refer to.

Not really.

“Because at this point we are running out of things to say.”

Don’t worry, there will be plenty to say. No doubt, eventually there will be another issue, another argument, and another ”teaching moment,” even if it’s only in cyber space. The seeds have already been sewn.

Really? How about controlling education and wresting it away from the left? How about teaching old-fashion values, like marriage and children, and how about bringing back men to their rightful place of leadership in our society?

And who do you think is going to initiate and enforce those pretty little ideals? The Republican Party?

There is a difference between winning the argument and implementing it practically, particularly in a polity where democratic deliberation means less and less with each election.

Do you think that if one of them was Black or Jewish he wouldn’t have help his natural allies against the terrorists because white men have no fraternity with Jews or black men during crisis?

Nobody at any point suggested minorities wouldn’t instinctively rally in an emergency. The question is whether the general culture of these minorities prevent them from acknowledging the slow-developing crisis of “soft despotism” and therefore prevent them from contributing to the cure.

Further, white honor culture — the Scots-Irish-Jacksonian strain of American militarism — has demonstrated time and time again to be not just superior to all comers, but most naturally cohesive. Injecting leftist/multicultural/feminist dogma into that brotherhood was a pathogen introduced to destroy it.

Precisely this white honor culture pledged their “lives, fortune, and sacred honor” to a cause that didn’t just liberate themselves two centuries ago, but provided the blueprint to liberate the world. That other peoples could only weakly imitate our revolution indicates a qualitative difference between our culture and theirs. I highlight this difference in order to preserve our superiority, even as our forebears’ diluted offspring — including yourself, unconsciously — seek to join those who would annihilate their own priceless inheritance by promoting “tolerance” and labeling the attempts to rally the last warriors the basis of “hate speech.”

“But there is a limit to discourse with women. Because of the restrictions of this medium, I have no choice but to drive the point home with mere words rather than slapping or fucking the sense into you.“

So this is what happens in the end, eh? In RL you would have just slapped me and fucked me into submission?

Yes.

“Alas, you will have to consult your imagination to fill in the blanks of that ‘teaching moment.’ I hope you at least have some experience with such a dynamic for you to refer to.”

Not really.

Explains everything — your nitpicking, your scandalized demeanor, your incessant drive to make the perfect the enemy of the good. If you think you can’t be fucked clear of that numbing feminine brain-noise, then you’ve never been fucked. E-mail me your number.

OK, we’re exhausting this topic quickly, but you keep accusing me of things that are not true, and I must defend myself:

“I highlight this difference in order to preserve our superiority, even as our forebears’ diluted offspring — including yourself, unconsciously — seek to join those who would annihilate their own priceless inheritance by promoting “tolerance” and labeling the attempts to rally the last warriors the basis of “hate speech.”

Wrong. I am not attempting to do that at all. I am promoting common sense by debunking the categorical syllogism of Mr. Eliot, your buddy. I am worried about irrational hate of the Jew that will not lead to anything, only heartache, as history has proven.
____________________________________________________________
“The question is whether the general culture of these minorities prevent them from acknowledging the slow-developing crisis of “soft despotism” and therefore prevent them from contributing to the cure.”

You have a point and you’re asking a legitimate question. But you can’t say all Jews are contributing to the death of the culture, or say only Jews are corrupting the culture, when the culture has been and is being corrupted by so many non-Jews as well. I still hold that it’s the left and all its sub-participants that’s corrupting, not the Jews per se, especially since not all Jews are leftists. And to constantly point out that a particular leftist is Jewish, in an obsessive way, is meant exactly what I said it’s meant to do, namely substitute Jews for leftists or liberals, and to cause hate of the Jews. A categorical syllogism.

All Jews are liberals.
All liberals are evil.
All Jews are evil.

This is what Greg Elliot is implying with every single one of his comments where the Jews are mentioned – Jews are evil. Therefore, I intend to keep at him, until I expose him for the irrational crackpot he is. Sorry if that sounds liberal to you. I assure you, I am the least liberal of women. I just haven’t thrown my common sense out the window.

Now, I’ll remind you that to blame all of our ills on the usual scapegoat of history – the Jew – is a dangerous thing, and not original in the least. Eliot didn’t invent it, he only recycles the usual hate coming down from the Middle Ages to Nazi Germany to fascist Islam, which inherited much of Hitler’s tactics against the Jews, and which is another reason why Eliot gets unhinged when I point out the Muslims irrational hate of America, Israel, and the rest of the West.

I’ll also remind you of what you yourself said about the same thing I observe. The link you sent me of your previous commends, which I said were amazing:

“If their anti-feminism is just an adjunct of their real War on the Hebes, then they are chiefly wasting their own time. For the most part I shrug at their pointless paranoid distractions. As long as they don’t get too lost in the weeds.”

Except, they ARE getting too lost in the weeds, they ARE attempting to substitute Jews for the left and turn the Jew into the enemy. If you believe only the Jew is corrupting, then you must go back to the beginning of American history and eradicate him there. He was always welcomed here – his religion, his values, his philosophies – are the bedrock and principles on which this nation stands. From the Pilgrims and the Mayflower who were big fans of the Old Testament (all studied Hebrew and knew it in its original language), to the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence based on Orthodox/classical Jewish philosophy.

Oh, if only it can be done – go back in history and right wrongs, eh? Maybe we could have erected America on Germanic principles, right? But it can’t. Only God can unwind, and he ain’t loosening his grip on the wheel of time.

Finally, trying to eradicate the Jews is not going to end well for anyone. You observe what most people refuse to see or admit:

“Jews are the infamously unassimilating, implacably insular, King Assholes of the planet…… we have been trying to eradicate them for several millennia. And failing. Spectacularly. (Alpha behavior, anyone?)”

“Israel has been surrounded by 100,000,000 Muslims who would love nothing so much as to pave that embarrassing little sliver of land into a parking lot for the Dome of the Rock. But for 60 years they’ve been impotent against a measly 800K – 7M Hebrews. Either Islam is a gutter religion full of losers or the Jews really have been chosen. Both are true, combining to create the greatest martial embarrassment of the last century and perhaps of all history. The pathetic swarming Mahometan herd has been reduced to killing themselves to destroy Israel. And they’re still failing.”

“The God of Abraham or the god of natural selection: Jews win.”

So I don’t know what you want. A year ago you were pointing out the hard reality that the Jew is indeed chosen and going up against him is futile, and now you are willing to engage in such futility and endanger our struggle against the left and its various tentacles with this anti-Jewish nonsense, that we both know will not end well for any of us. ‘Cause believe me, you don’t want to go against The God of Abraham.
___________________________________________________________

“If you think you can’t be fucked clear of that numbing feminine brain-noise, then you’ve never been fucked. E-mail me your number.”

You know what I think bothers you and irks you the most? Women. Feminism. I can accept that; I hate feminists too. Notice how I am not scandalized by you telling me you’ll fuck me into submission, as a feminist would be. I am not a feminist, yet you so much as accused me of being one because I don’t show respect to a crackpot in your male fraternity.

You’re not really a Jew hater or a minorities hater, and you often give them credit where credit is due, something irrational non-thinkers like Elliot will never do. But I think you are demoralized by the destruction of the male-female relationship and you think that by aligning yourself with various types of absolutists (neo-Nazi and white-supremacist groups) in the guise of male fraternity and their promise of restoring male sovereignty, society will be returned to the days of old where you could fuck me into submission. That’s what seducing your mind to their side. I’m sorry, but uniting forces with such types is not going to give you feminism’s head on a spear. You need to align yourself with like-minded males who see the dangers we face in clear terms and don’t “get lost in the weeds.”

@Nitelily “BTW, Uh and J.M. are total pagans, not just simple atheists. There is a difference in the quality of beliefs. The former is a bit inaner then the latter. Alas, they are both stupid. ” I suppose it`s the typical response of some Jew worshipping know nothing modern protestant (most likely born again mega church type).

For the record, for those strangers out there, 1. I am not a nazi, 2. not a pagan, 3. I think Jews (organized Jewry not common Jewish folk) have a greater and malevolent influence in the media of your country and figure high on most destructive movements. Even a braindead would know that Hollywood is their realm as well as banking. And fyi a significant number of them figure high in the number of billionaires. Is that bad? No, unless you dedicate your efforts to undermine and destroy the society you live in, but I guess looking it up would be very hard. 4. By the way left and right are paradigms designed for the proles, what really exist goes beyond your understanding, which is those standing up for the old order (patriarchy, self-reliance, freedom, fairer distribution of opportunities no matter what race or religion you belonged, versus centralized, anti-freedom, collectivist, feminist, neo-marxist style totalitarian and elitist scourge hellbent on destroying anything that might give a chance to the commoners to rise from our frailties (family, really successful men-women relations) and who wishes a radical reduction in world population (the population being people like you and me as well as thwack and any other non-multimillionaire on earth.

Beyond that Jews as Matt said have worthy features to emulate, their culture is certainly stronger than the Hispanic or European heritage, however within the frame of real Christianity, non-Christians are not brothers. One prays for their conversion if one is really merciful (something obviously you are not). By the way could you stop slandering the people of the Middle Ages, in many aspects they knew more than modern western peoples, were self reliant and their women for sure weren’t know-nothing- on-the-verge-of-stupidity-and-idiocy-covert-racist evangelicals.

And to understand my politics read this https://heartiste.wordpress.com/2012/12/20/the-benefits-of-older-fatherhood/#comment-399527 since you seem to think I am unable to understand what freedom is. I assure you, I have a truer concept of freedom than you because I don’t blame others for my shortcomings, and I believe everyone has the power within himself to make it happen for himself, as per our Constitution. No one in this country is standing in your way of success, and to blame the Jews for one’s lack of success is just lame, beta, useless, and for losers. Both the left and certain conservative/libertarians think the rich and the Jews are controlling their lives. Both are looking for scapegoating to make themselves feel better. The left thinks it’s the rich and certain conservative/libertarians think it’s the Jews. They are both sorry excuses of an ideology and anti-Constitution.

Anyway, I would love to debate with you further when the opportunity arises. I just think doing it on an old thread is not the place for it. Nevertheless, I had to answer you in depth because you levied many unfounded accusations.

Ya Really do not stop posting. I found this blog because I am a lesser alpha 8 female who has been dating a high alpha and was trying to get some insights into the relationship. I do NOT care about all these “Niggers n Jews” babble either and I am simply intrigued by game/PUAs/Alphas. I like that Heartiste gives the bitter pill (truth) about the dating market and dispels the feminist bullshit rhetoric.

Yep. That’s why I scanscanscan and scrollscrollscroll through the comments. The anti-black stuff, the anti-Jewish stuff, the Jesus stuff, the fake quasi-Objectivism, the fake pre-Socraticism and, sorry, Tits-or-gtfo-books-for-men, the incomprehensible ascii spasms…huge waste of time. Trying to be effective in the world but just haven’t internalized the lessons on female psychology yet. I’m here to comprehend, not hold a bitch fest. And I appreciate YaReally’s posts in particular, as I have an aversion to loud social gatherings and therefore need to master that millieu.

That’s because I don’t look at the surface stuff, as most empty-headed people like you do. I look deep below the surface, and I am usually right about my observations. I had enough conversations with him to know exactly the kind of demagoguery he spews. Maybe some of these exchanges went over your head, but you sure paid close attention to the puns and show tunes, eh?

If you think a love of word-play and music alone makes you a good chap, it’s the reason why this country is filled with simpletons and idiots. Carry on….

This sad part is that this scenario gets played out dozens, if not hundreds of times a day on America’s streets and in the schools… but no old white man in a beat up pick-up truck with a .45 comes along to save the day.

And if one did, the bros would be on their cell phones in a NY minute to report “a man with a gun”.

Then guess who the cops would have kissing the pavement tout de suite? And whose right to carry a gun from thereon would be denied.

Time for Life to imitate Art more on these kinds of flicks, rather than just the Saw and Scream headcase fare.

21. The right and lawful ordering of birth demands, first of all, that spouses fully recognize and value the true blessings of family life and that they acquire complete mastery over themselves and their emotions. For if with the aid of reason and of free will they are to control their natural drives, there can be no doubt at all of the need for self-denial. Only then will the expression of love, essential to married life, conform to right order. This is especially clear in the practice of periodic continence. Self-discipline of this kind is a shining witness to the chastity of husband and wife and, far from being a hindrance to their love of one another, transforms it by giving it a more truly human character.

[…] Unions in wedlock are perverted by the victory of shameless passion that masters the female among men and beasts. Woman is the salvation or destruction of the family. She carries its destiny in the folds of her mantle. – Aeschylus [källa] […]

Not really. “Game” is a shockingly traditional endeavor, if one takes the long view of cultural history. I would expect many of its adherents to be better-educated, and more classically-educated, than average.

I found this on another message board I read. The original CL ad was taken down but the OP quoted her. File this under Chicks dig Jerks part 8836982750642026:

in Hell with an angel – w4m
Date: 2012-12-01, 2:17AM ESTp9n7j-3447140319@pers.craigslist.org
I dated a callous, cruel jerk. I dated a complete jerk with streaks of evil in his cold blood who cheated on me, lied to me, and ultimately broke my heart. Then I met you and you are an angel in my life because you’ve restored my sense of joy and self-respect after so much abuse and sadness. You found me and I was beaten down and scared like a wounded dog on the run from wolves. You rescued me from a monster.

I’m laying next to you in bed right now in the quiet darkness of this sanctuary you’ve provided me. And I’m thinking of him. I’m thinking of that monster that will forever be under my bed. Our bed.

That’s all well and good, but completely moot when you have a diverse, vibrant country such as ours. Since having different laws for different people’s is somewhat frowned upon by our elite liberal overlords, abortion and birth control are the only ways to keep the brown, huddled masses from reproducing like rodents (which they still do).

In a non NAM country, I would fully support limited access to birth control and abortion, as usually those women posses the future time orientation to understand the consequences of spreading their legs for a cad like you 😉

However, in our current environment, you will not find a bigger advocate for BC pills and abortions than me. And I bet these disingenuous white liberals know exactly what’s up when they preach “women’s rights”- it is basically the right to empower Shanequa to pre-empt more inner city crime.

Marriage is also boosted by some legal inducements. Among which, everybody who works in Singapore has to contribute to a pension plan, but it is an individual pension plan, not like US Social Security but more like a compulsory IRA/401K/whatever).

It seems that Singapore is the best ruled place on Earth. The problem I have with them is their lack of beautiful women. Why the hell we can’t have a tiny country with hot chicks ruled by Singaporean standards?

Women were cheating on beta husbands…has anyone noted before that husbandry is the professional raising the offspring of 2 other animals…birth control just meant the less crappy women would not have to work so hard to hide it.

It is time to move beyond game as the counterpoint to feminism. While game is the logical endpoint for men in a feminist world paradigm, we can go deeper. Game is nihilism It’s time to go beyond the logical mind and enter the spiritual.

How do you deal with hunger? Logic tells you to eat. Thus one becomes beholden to the hunger desire. The way to control hunger is not to satiate the desire immediately. Thus one masters the hunger desire and it serves the him and not vice versa. In the logical mind this is a paradox, thus it is a spiritual law. The same goes with the libido. The logical conclusion to being horny is to satisfy the sexual urge as quickly as possible. Thus one becomes a servant of the libido instead of a master. Think of the male libido as a hungry 600 pound lion that one is forced to care for on a daily basis. Logic says try to feed the lion real meat as quickly and often as possible (sex with real women). In the case that this is not available logic says find an ersatz replacetment for real meat, say spam. The sexual equivalent for this is porn and hence the explosion of pornography in our liberal feminised world.

The way to mastery is NOT to indulge to libido. Once control is attained that energy can be redirected to use as one sees fit. The ultimate reality of this is that it breaks the illusion of feminine beauty and the hold it has on men. Where game is the endpoint in the logical mind in that it seeks to find the ultimate way to satisfy this always recurring seemingly overwhelming urge, mastering the libido truly releases one from a subservient role. You control the lion. It follows your commands. You do not follow it. You feed it when you see fit. It is often said that women are the sexual gatekeepers. This because we cede it to them because we see our own libido’s as uncontrollable. We can become the sexual gatekeepers.

This is the ultimate reframe. Suddenly female demands for male attention are impervious to you. By controlling your libido you no longer seek to fill “the spank bank”. You visually take in the yoga pants with the jigglying mounds of flesh and bifurcated moose knuckles that women coyly use to pull the male gaze only to give a look of triumphant disgust back but no longer do you linger and cede control. In fact you must actively ignore it. You must teach the mind to constantly redirect it’s thoughts. The triumphant validation women receive from male attention is no longer contributed to by you. When men master their own libido’s and start to ignore the flesh parade of our modern age, then they will have seized control back. Knowing that you can go weeks or months without succumbing to your libido is to know that you are in control. You are the master. This means no fapping. In fact it is crucial because the angst between wanting to satiate the desire and only having an ersatz outlet creates hostility and despair. Pornography exploits men. Millions of women are cashing on men turning over their hard earned resources in the desperate attempt to fend off the wolves at the door. Like the drug addict or the alcoholic, giving in to the craving only creates more future dependence.

This spiritual paradox is applicable in all areas of life. How do you deal with material desires? Logic tells to get more stuff but our insatiable ego means this is never fully met. Thus existential angst, ennui, or the Bhuddist “dhukka”.

The solution is to remove the need. The only way this is possible is to move beyond the stifling limits of the intellectual, logical mind. Feminism is another ideology produced by pure instrumental reasoning. Relying on instrumental reasoning to construct a social paradigm always ends up in a grotesque mockery of the natural order. Just as concentration camps, genocide, and Joseph Mengle’s experiments were the logical extension on Nazism, so the current debauched debacle we currently have is the logical endpoint for the ideology of feminism.

No one wants to become a monk. That is not the point. The idea is to create non reliance (attachements) on the ceaseless, unending, always returning cravings.

As long as legions of beta men are beholden to their libido then rising hordes of angry men in this feminist world is inevitable. Their frustrated sexual desires, as noted, are creating a toxic gender hostility. Seize control. When men work on true spiritual growth and free themselves from material ego enslavement, women will have to follow.

This is a semi-higher calling. All men can reach this level, and the everyday Christian is enjoined (by Christ) to follow this calling (as seen in scripture texts such as “Don’t look at a woman lustfully” etc). But there is even a highest calling for the few, that is, men should jettison the sexual desire altogether, and Christ acknowledges that not every body is called to do this.

Yes, this is important. I studied Game so I could actually get “it” if I wanted, rather than be a beta vainly beholden to my libido. And guess what: it has worked. Beautifully. The cravings are there, but I can sneer at them and control them, rather than have them run my life.

Men aren’t going to act in concert like that. One man turns a woman down for sex, she simply and very easily gets another, who is happy to take the free opportunity to satisfy his urge right then and there. There will always be a shortage of casual sex for most men (and a shortage of commitment-worthy men for women). Most men are never going to be sexual gatekeepers, get used to it and learn game.

Monogamy came from the old Testament. While some of the Jewish patriarchs had more than one wife, it wasn’t that prevalent and was always frowned upon or advised against. Eventually the Jews outlawed it after their first temple was destroyed, about 300 years before Christ. So I would say, this is how this philosophy ended in the west.

Mary was a virgin when she gave birth to Jesus, but later she was faithful to her HUSBAND Joseph, and slept with him and gave him children, Jesus’s brothers and sisters including James. The veneration and worship of Mary is idolatry and if she wasn’t consumed with worshiping God right now she would weep knowing that people have sinned against God worshiping her image instead.

No, that’s because Aramaic was deficient in vocabulary for distant relatives like cousins. James and John, sons of Zebedee (not Joseph), were called Jesus’ “brothers”. The Greek word phrater in fact eventually came to mean “fellow clan member”. Both Mary and Joseph had dedicated their virginity to God, and therefore didn’t have a consummated marriage.

I’ve never been able to understand the appeal of it myself, this consecrating one’s virginity to God, but it’s been the basis of celibacy for priests, monks, and nuns throughout history.

I know there’s a lot of back-and-forth between Catholic Doctrine and what other Christians say about all the places where Jesus’ brothers and sisters and Mary are mentioned in Scripture… personally, I believe the Scripture is plain about the issue, but I’m not really willing to argue one way or the other… because the point of Mary’s virginity after Jesus is moot, in my book, since I don’t believe one should pray to saints and lean towards the feeling that overmuch adoration of Mary (even if she remained a virgin her entire life) is too close to idolatry.

Again, my opinion, and perhaps that of a few others… but I wouldn’t shun Catholics for this point of faith.

I’m glad we’re in the same boat. There has been a whole tangent debate going on, while you were arguing with whomever. Catholicism says that Mary remained a virgin her entire life, and was born and died without sin. This is clearly unbiblical though, as Scripture tells us that Jesus is the only human without sin.

Your Mariology is wanting, as might be expected on a pick-up guru’s message board. There is no confusion in the church about who the Mediator and Redeemer is and will always be, the alpha and the omega. What leads to external confusion is this dip-in dilettantism regarding the sight of our veneration of the saints, of whom the Blessed Virgin is first among equals. She is the Theotokos, the God-bearer, the New Eve, and the New Ark of the New Covenant. Of course she gets greater attention.

“My soul magnifies the LORD,” begins her Magnificat.

and my spirit rejoices in God my Savior;
Because He has regarded the lowliness of His handmaid;
for behold, henceforth all generations shall call me blessed;
Because He who is mighty has done great things for me,
and Holy is His Name.

No confusion there. Yes, she is special because she was the first to recognize the Christ, and she was perfectly loyal to his glorification clear through his Passion, Death, and Resurrection, through Pentecost, her Assumption, and her Coronation. Mary perpetually points to her Son without hesitation or error. His power transfigures her as it transfigures all who live in his grace, nearest of all to the wellspring as she is. She is not the object of adoration, she is the magnifying glass.

Blessed Mary is the perfect woman and model for all women. How does she achieve this perfection? Through immaculate obedience. “Behold, I am the handmaid of the Lord; let it be to me according to your word.”

Her bodily assumption reminds us of the intrinsic holiness of the female form. There is no greater beauty in all of heaven or earth than a woman at her peak, and I’d imagine the readers here would agree with that contention. In game terms, Mary Immaculate pole-vaulted The Wall, forever untouched by rot and decay. Sinlessness and perpetual purity is rewarded by bodily preservation, the reward promised to all of us and confirmed by the virtue of hope. When we defile a woman for fleeting pleasures we murder her, sending her along the course that literally, ultimately putrefies her flesh in the grave. The Thousand Cock Stare of any pornstar should give the observer ample (if subjective) evidence of the deadly truth of this doctrine.

CH likes to tease women about the tragedy of the wall and their denial of its dominion over female flesh — but not without an admission of melancholy. What injustice to give female comeliness a window of a mere decade or so, only to be ruthlessly snatched away from her and to mock her for the rest of her life! There is something deep in our souls that knows a priori something is deeply amiss — just as we know that the prospect of our mortality goes contrary to our most primal intuitions. We are all born to die; cute teenaged girls are born to wrinkle, rot, and die. WTF is that?

Good News, mortals. It feels deeply incongruous just like every other lie because it is a lie. Sin is death, freely chosen and starting early, from your first gray hair to the final dirt nap. “The last enemy to be destroyed is death…”

“For God has put all things in subjection under his feet.” …

Why am I in peril every hour?

I protest, brethren, by my pride in you which I have in Christ Jesus our Lord, I die every day! …

But some one will ask, “How are the dead raised? With what kind of body do they come?”

You foolish man! What you sow does not come to life unless it dies.

And what you sow is not the body which is to be, but a bare kernel, perhaps of wheat or of some other grain. But God gives it a body as he has chosen, and to each kind of seed its own body. …

So is it with the resurrection of the dead. What is sown is perishable, what is raised is imperishable.

It is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory. It is sown in weakness, it is raised in power.

Lo! I tell you a mystery. We shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed, in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised imperishable, and we shall be changed. …

When the perishable puts on the imperishable, and the mortal puts on immortality, then shall come to pass the saying that is written: “Death is swallowed up in victory.”

“O death, where is thy victory?
O death, where is thy sting?”

The sting of death is sin, and the power of sin is the law. But thanks be to God, who gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ.

— 1 Corinthians 15

What other hope do you have? What else can save you from blinking out, consigned to the void after years of gathering dread and omega despair? Even if it is all bullshit, the very disposition of Spes allows you to live life to the full. “I came that they may have life, and have it abundantly.”

Or more succinctly, according to St. Irenaeus: “The glory of God is man fully alive.” Decline is a choice.

As usual, an excellent King A post to clear some of the confusion away.

On a side note, this is why the song Mary, Did You Know always annoyed me so much… if you really think about that question, it’s a near-blasphemous song masquerading as pop culture piety… but I digress.

I’ve been lurking here for over a year and King A, Heart’s, YA, Nichole, and a few others comments have been valuable. Nite lily is annoying to the point of it almost, no longer being worth reading the comments sections.

Total rubbish. Birth control has been fantastic for marriages too. I can’t imagine how much life would suck if I had to seriously worry about getting pregnant every time we screw (which is basically everyday). Ever have to get up at night with a crying baby? How about every night for three years with crying babies? Ten years? Having no rest or time to enjoy just the company f each other puts a damper on married sex life.

The FBI got the woman Rashida Moore to set him up because remember; he went to her apartment for some pussy. It was ONLY after she wouldn’t give him any pussy that he decided to smoke the crack (which she conveniently happened to have and encouraged him to smoke)

[…] which we have been exposed over the past 50 years are unlike anything that has ever gone before. Chateau Heartiste (CH) (2012) agrees, and makes his point with reference to an excerpt from paragraph 17 of the […]